You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION STEMMING FROM PFOA CONTAMINATION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION DID NOT APPLY; QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE DUTY OF CARE, PROXIMATE CAUSE, PRIVATE NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ complaint in this PFOA contamination case properly survived defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care, defendant did not demonstrate it did not proximately cause the alleged injuries, there was a question of fact on the private nuisance and trespass causes of action, and the punitive damages claim was proper. With respect to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the court wrote:

[The] doctrine “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views”… . Defendant argues that the various regulatory agencies, who have the requisite expertise, have been investigating the matter at issue and that the recovery sought by plaintiffs is already being provided by these agencies. We disagree. Although defendant points to an announcement that the Department of Health will be providing medical monitoring, this announcement merely stated that a study was being proposed and that, if funded, the study would last for five years. Contrary to defendant’s representation, there was no definitive statement that the medical monitoring would be provided. As to the remediation of plaintiffs’ private wells, the consent order and other announcements, upon which defendant relies, do not address all of the relief requested by plaintiffs in the second amended complaint. Accordingly, defendant’s argument is without merit. Burdick v Tonoga, Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 01178, Third Dept 2-25-21

 

, , ,

ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel should not have been granted in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury rendering him unable to take care of himself and was awarded over $21 million:

… [W]e conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a new trial in the interest of justice based upon attorney misconduct. Some of the challenged conduct was improper, and we do not condone it … . However, “where counsel, in summing up, exceeds the bounds of legal propriety, it is the duty of the opposing counsel to make a specific objection and for the court to rule on the objection, to direct the jury to disregard any improper remarks, and to admonish counsel from repetition of improper remarks” … . Here, defense counsel did not object to the challenged remarks during summation or request a curative instruction, thus depriving the court of the opportunity to direct the jury to disregard improper remarks or give other curative instructions, and to avoid further error … . “Where no objection is interposed, a new trial may be directed only where the remarks are so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice, and where the comments are so pervasive, prejudicial, or inflammatory as to deprive a party of a fair trial” … . The misconduct of the plaintiff’s counsel in the instant case was not so pervasive or prejudicial as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial, or to have affected the verdict, particularly in light of the strength of the plaintiff’s case … .  Accordingly, we deny that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice, and reinstate the verdict. Yu v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 08215, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO CORRECT THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend the caption to reflect the correct name of the defendant and the defendant’s church should have been granted:

Where the summons and complaint have been served under a misnomer upon the party which the plaintiff intended as the defendant, an amendment will be permitted if the court has acquired jurisdiction over the intended but misnamed defendant provided that the intended but misnamed defendant was fairly apprised that he or she was the party the action was intended to affect, and the intended but misnamed defendant would not be prejudiced … . Here, the allegations contained in the complaint fairly apprised Sidney Klestov that he was the intended party defendant, and there is no evidence of any prejudice to him. Likewise, the plaintiffs established that the caption should be amended to correct the name of the Parish of the Holy Assumption Russian Orthodox Greek Church Catholic Church, Inc., to The Russian Orthodox Church of the Assumption, Inc. “‘[W]here the right party plaintiff is in court but under a defective name or title as party plaintiff, . . . an amendment correcting the title is permissible'” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend the caption to correct the names of the parties. Parish of the Holy Assumption Russian Orthodox Greek Church Catholic Church, Inc. v Klestoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 08198, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

,

A MORTGAGE DEBT CAN BE ACCELERATED ONLY BY AN UNEQUIVOCAL OVERT ACT, I.E., COMMENCING A FORECLOSURE ACTION OR A DOCUMENT MAKING IT CLEAR THE ENTIRE DEBT IS IMMEDIATELY DUE (NOT THAT IT WILL BE DUE IN THE FUTURE); A MORTGAGE DEBT CAN BE DE-ACCELERATED BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE, EVEN IF ITS PURPOSE IS TO STOP THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM RUNNING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a partial dissent and a concurrence, clarified how courts should handle two recurring issues in the sea of foreclosures which have inundated the courts: (1) how is the mortgage debt accelerated such that the entire amount becomes due and the six-year statute of limitations for a foreclosure action starts running; and (2) how is the debt de-accelerated such that the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action stops running and the borrower can resume monthly installment payments? The Court of Appeals held that acceleration of the debt must be done by an unequivocal overt act. In the Vargas case, the foreclosure action did not refer to the correct loan, which had been modified and did not therefore accelerate the debt. In the Wells Fargo case, the letter did not ask for immediate payment of the entire debt and therefore did not accelerate the debt. As for de-acceleration, that can be accomplished by voluntarily discontinuing the foreclosure action:

There are sound policy reasons to require that an acceleration be accomplished by an “unequivocal overt act.” * * *

[Re: Acceleration, the Vargas case] … [W]here the deficiencies in the [foreclosure] complaints were not merely technical or de minimis and rendered it unclear what debt was being accelerated—the commencement of these [foreclosure] actions did not validly accelerate the modified loan … . * * *

[Re: Acceleration, the Wells Fargo case] … [T]he letter did not seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written.  * * *

[Re: De-acceleration or Revocation of the Acceleration ] … [W]hen a bank effectuated an acceleration via the commencement of a foreclosure action, a voluntary discontinuance of that action—i.e., the withdrawal of the complaint—constitutes a revocation of that acceleration. In such a circumstance, the noteholder’s withdrawal of its only demand for immediate payment of the full outstanding debt, made by the “unequivocal overt act” of filing a foreclosure complaint, “destroy[s] the effect” of the election … . …

We reject the theory … that a lender should be barred from revoking acceleration if the motive of the revocation was to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations on the accelerated debt. A noteholder’s motivation for exercising a contractual right is generally irrelevant. Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 2021 NY Slip Op 01090, CtApp 2-18-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT BEFORE RULING OHIO HAD JURISDICTION IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S NEW YORK FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE NEW YORK HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER FAMILY OFFENSES OCCURRING IN OHIO (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) Family Court did not follow the procedure required by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) before ruling that Ohio had jurisdiction based on father’s custody petition there and dismissing mother’s New York child support and custody petitions: and (2) Family Court should not have dismissed mother’s New York family offense petition, even though the majority of alleged offenses occurred in Ohio:

Family Court failed to satisfy the procedural mechanisms required by the UCCJEA when a custody petition is pending in another state. After becoming aware of the Ohio proceeding, Family Court properly communicated with the Ohio court … . The extent of these communications is unclear; however, they apparently resulted in the transmittance of the Ohio order to Family Court. Although the contents of the Ohio order strongly implied that the Ohio court intended to retain jurisdiction, as evidenced by its scheduling of the matter for trial, this did not absolve Family Court of its obligation to create a record of its communications and to provide that record to the parties … . Family Court’s brief summary of its determination following the communication, which was not placed on the record in the presence of the parties, does not satisfy this statutory mandate … . Moreover, although it was a permissible exercise of discretion for Family Court not to permit the parties to participate in its communication with the Ohio court … , the court was then required to allow the parties an opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before it rendered a decision, which it failed to do … . Thus, “[i]nasmuch as we cannot discern from the record whether Family Court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction and, on that basis, dismissing the mother’s custody petition, we reverse and remit” for Family Court to render a determination after creating an appropriate record and, if required, affording the parties an opportunity to present facts and legal arguments … . …

… [A]lthough the majority of the acts alleged in the family offense petition occurred in Ohio, Family Court’s jurisdiction is not subject to the same geographic limitations as placed on that of the criminal courts, as nothing “requires the predicate acts of a family offense to have occurred in a particular county, state, or country in order for the Family Court to possess subject matter jurisdiction” … . Matter of Vashon H. v Bret I.2021 NY Slip Op 01103, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR PERSONS DENIED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BASED ON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THEIR VEHICLES WAS PROPER; THE OPT-IN PROCEDURE SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY CLASS MEMBERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the opt-in procedure should be used to identify members of the class who were denied public assistance based upon the fair market value (FMV) of their cars. The class certification by Supreme Court was found proper:

In our prior decision regarding this matter, we affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s judgment as annulled a determination of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (hereinafter OTDA) denying petitioner’s application for public assistance … . We agreed with Supreme Court that the methodology that OTDA was using to calculate whether an applicant had available resources from an automobile — which focused on the fair market value (hereinafter FMV) of the applicant’s vehicle in excess of the statutory exemption (see Social Services Law § 131-n [e]) regardless of whether the applicant had any equity interest therein — was “irrational and unreasonable” … . * * *

… [T]he opt-in approach would prove more efficient … . … In those instances where the opt-in notice is returned as undeliverable, OTDA should then be required to conduct a manual file review. Matter of Stewart v Roberts, 2021 NY Slip Op 01105, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTION HAS MERIT OR AN EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO FILE IN SEEKING AN EXTENSION TO FILE THE CERTIFICATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, overruling precedent, determined that the failure to timely file a certificate of merit pursuant to CPLR 3012-a in a medical malpractice action does not require dismissal of the action. In addition, a showing that the action has merit and an excuse for failing to file are not necessary when seeking an extension for filing:

Had the legislature intended to permit dismissal for failure to comply with CPLR 3012-a, the statute would empower the court to do so … . Accordingly, the sanction of dismissal is not authorized and to the extent that this Court’s decisions in Blasoff v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (147 AD3d 481), Grad v Hafliger (68 AD3d 543), George v St. John’s Riverside Hosp. (162 AD2d 140), and Perez v Lenox Hill Hosp. (159 AD2d 251) are not in accord with the foregoing, they should no longer be followed.

Moreover, generally, a showing of a meritorious action and a reasonable excuse is required to vacate a pleading default and the failure to make this showing necessarily mandates dismissal of the pleading. However, since this sanction is improper in the context of a CPLR 3012-a violation, it follows that the failure to comply with this provision is not a pleading default and a plaintiff is not required to make this showing … .Accordingly, a showing of a meritorious action through the submission of an affidavit of merit and a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with CPLR 3012-a is not required to obtain an extension of time to comply with the statute. Fortune v New York City Health & Hosps. Corps., 2021 NY Slip Op 01122, First Dept 2-18-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not establish it had negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f):

The plaintiff was not in possession of the note at the time of commencement of the action. Further, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that it was authorized to act on behalf of FHLBC to commence the foreclosure action, since the plaintiff did not submit any power of attorney, servicing agreement, or other agreement authorizing the plaintiff to commence this action … . Moreover, the affidavits relied upon by the plaintiff contained only conclusory assertions that the plaintiff was the loan servicer, without asserting the existence of any agreement delegating to the plaintiff the authority to commence this action on FHLBC’s behalf in 2012. * * *

… [T]here is no evidence that the plaintiff attempted to obtain a waiver of the investor’s self-employment restriction, which, according to the plaintiff’s own denial letter, was the reason for its denial of the defendant’s first and second loan modification applications. …

Since the defendant’s submissions raise a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to resolve this action through loan modification or other potential workout options … , the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine this issue before deciding that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Lofria, 2021 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-17-21

 

, ,

AN AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE HUSBAND’S LIFE INSURANCE AND 401k IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ONGOING DIVORCE ACTION, ISSUED AFTER THE HUSBAND’S DEATH, WAS WITHOUT EFFECT EVEN THOUGH THE ORGINAL STIPULATED ORDER WAS ISSUED ONE DAY BEFORE THE HUSBAND’S DEATH; THE DIVORCE ACTION ABATED UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the death of the husband abated the divorce action and an “amended stipulated order” issued after the husband’s death concerning the wife’s interest in the husband’s insurance policy and 401k account was without effect. The original stipulated order had been issued one day before the husband’s death:

It is well settled that “where one party to a divorce action dies prior to the rendering of a judicial determination which dissolves or terminates the marriage, the action abates inasmuch as the marital relationship between the parties no longer exists” … . “Although an exception to this rule exists where the court has made a final adjudication of divorce but has not performed ‘the mere ministerial act of entering the final judgment,’ ” that exception does not apply here inasmuch as the court had merely granted some pretrial orders but had not made any final adjudication of divorce … . In this instance, the husband’s death “abated the . . . action for a divorce and ancillary relief” … . Adams v Margulis, 2021 NY Slip Op 00971, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE JUDGE WHO DISMISSED THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT PLACE ON THE RECORD THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIMELY FILED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have been dismissed because the tolling provisions of CPLR 205 (a) applied. The judge who dismissed the action did not place on the record specific conduct constituting neglect to prosecute demonstrating a general pattern of delay:

… [T]he tolling provisions of CPLR 205 (a) apply inasmuch as the 2012 action was not dismissed for neglect to prosecute. CPLR 205 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by . . . a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action . . . , the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination,” even though the new action would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. “Where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to [CPLR 3216] or otherwise, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the 2012 action was timely commenced and that the instant action was commenced within six months of the termination of the 2012 action. …

Here, the court did not outline a general pattern of delay by plaintiff in its order dismissing the 2012 complaint or in the attached decision … . Broadway Warehouse Co. v Buffalo Barn Bd., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00963, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

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