You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dental malpractice action, determine there were questions of fact about (1) the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations, (2) the deviation from the standard of care, and (3) the lack of informed consent:

The instant case does not involve gaps in treatment longer than the 2½-year statute of limitations … , and “a discharge by a physician [or dentist] does not preclude application of the continuous treatment toll if the patient timely initiates a return visit to complain about and seek further treatment for conditions related to the earlier treatment” … . …

… [B]y submitting the affidavits of her experts, plaintiff raised issues of fact whether defendants deviated from the standard of care and whether such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact whether she would have opted for extraction of several teeth and placement of implants had she been fully informed … . Bellamy v Baron, 2021 NY Slip Op 00953, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

, ,

FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY TO THE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraud and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action should have been dismissed. All of the elements of fraud were not pled with particularity, the six-year statute of limitations did not apply because the fraud allegations were identical to the injurious falsehood and tortious interference claims, and the Judiciary Law 487 causes of actions did not relate to any proceedings before the court:

Although fraud claims are generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]), “courts will not apply the fraud [s]tatute of [l]imitations if the fraud allegation is only incidental to the claim asserted; otherwise, fraud would be used as a means to litigate stale claims” … . “In classifying a cause of action for statute of limitations purposes, the controlling consideration is not the form in which the cause of action is stated, but its substance” … . Inasmuch as the gravamen of plaintiffs’ fraud claim is that plaintiffs suffered reputational damages and a loss of goodwill as a result of defendants’ conduct and that [plaintiff] lost its contract … as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme, we conclude that the fraud allegation is incidental to the injurious falsehood and tortious interference claims, which were dismissed by the court as time-barred.

… [T]he court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking to dismiss the ninth cause of action, for violations of Judiciary Law § 487 … .Under section 487 (1), an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion . . . with intent to deceive the court or any party,” is guilty of a misdemeanor and is potentially liable for treble damages to be recovered in a civil action. A violation of the statute may be established by evidence of the defendant’s alleged deceit … but “alleged deceit that is not directed at a court must occur in the course of ‘a pending judicial proceeding’ ” … .

… The complaint failed to allege, however, that [defendant law firm] engaged in egregious misconduct or made a material false statement in the course of a judicial proceeding. The allegedly deceitful memorandum was not directed at the court, and the complaint failed to allege that it was promulgated during a pending judicial proceeding … . Dreamco Dev. Corp. v Empire State Dev. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00952, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

A CORPORATION OPERATING A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY MAY BRING A PLENARY ACTION BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR ONE OF ITS RESIDENTS; NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the corporation that operates a skilled nursing facility may bring a plenary action based on the denial of Medicaid benefits for one of its residents:

Plaintiff, a domestic corporation that operates a skilled nursing facility, commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment or money damages for expenses it allegedly incurred in providing care for one of its residents after the resident was determined to be ineligible for Medicaid benefits during a penalty period of 11.74 months. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that the statute of limitations had expired … .

… [A]skilled nursing facility such as plaintiff “may bring a plenary action in its own right against the agency designated to declare Medicaid eligibility” … . In such a plenary action, the facility is “not bound by the patient’s failure to request an administrative appeal of the local agency’s denial of medical assistance” or “by the four-month Statute of Limitations contained in CPLR 217” … . VDRNC, LLC v Merrick, 2021 NY Slip Op 00945, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE AFFIRMATIONS OF DISCONTINUANCE AND CANCELLATION WERE SILENT ON THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND THEREFORE DID NOT STOP THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM RUNNING; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred despite the affirmations of discontinuance and cancellation which were silent on the acceleration of the debt:

“A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … . As this Court held in Engel, a lender’s mere act of discontinuing an action, without more, does not constitute, in and of itself, an affirmative act revoking an earlier acceleration of the debt … . Rather, in order to be effective as a notice of revocation, the notice must contain an indication that the lender would accept installment payments from the homeowner in satisfaction of his or her prospective monthly payment obligations … .

Here, … the six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt in November 2010, when JP Morgan commenced the prior action to foreclose the subject mortgage. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired in November 2016, and the instant action, commenced in July 2017, was untimely. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the affirmations of discontinuance and cancellation did not constitute an affirmative act of revocation, since they are silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and did not otherwise indicate that JP Morgan would accept installment payments from the borrowers … .  FV-1, Inc. v Palaguachi, 2021 NY Slip Op 00838, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THE ANSWER IS NO LONGER DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to amend her answer to add the lack of standing defense. Pursuant to RPAPL 1302-a the failure to include the lack of standing defense in the answer is no longer deemed waiver of the defense:

… [T]he defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of lack of standing. RPAPL 1302-a … provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of CPLR 3211(e), “any objection or defense based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing in a foreclosure proceeding related to a home loan, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision six of section thirteen hundred four of this article, shall not be waived if a defendant fails to raise the objection or defense in a responsive pleading or pre-answer motion to dismiss.” Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing … . Further, the defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the holder or assignee of the note at the time the action was commenced … . In response, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its standing as a matter of law … . US Bank N.A. v Blake-Hovanec, 2021 NY Slip Op 00893, Second Department 2-10-21

 

, , ,

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

 

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