You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; TWO OF THE THREE PRONGS OF THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation back doctrine did not apply and plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a party after the statute of limitations had run should not have been granted. Initially plaintiff named two individuals as defendants, Smithem and Dey, in this medical malpractice, wrongful death action. After the statute had run plaintiff’s attorney realized Smithem and Dey were not the right parties and sought to amend the complaint to add Crystal Run Healthcare. Plaintiff acknowledged that Crystal Run employees Smithem and Dey never performed the conduct alleged in the complaint, so Crystal Run was not united in interest with the named defendants. In addition plaintiff failed to demonstrate the correct parties could not have been identified before the statute of limitations ran:

The relation back doctrine allows a plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a party even though the statute of limitations has expired if the plaintiff satisfies three conditions: (1) both claims must arise out of the same occurrence; (2) the proposed defendant must be united in interest with the original defendants; and (3) the proposed defendant must have known or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the proposed defendant’s identity, the action would have been also brought against it … . …

Supreme Court found that Crystal Run was united in interest with both Smithen and Dey by virtue of an employer-employee relationship and principles of vicarious liability. Although such circumstances can lead to a finding of unity in interest … , plaintiff has candidly admitted that Smithen and Dey are free from any and all liability because they never performed the conduct that is the basis of the complaint. As such, plaintiff has vitiated any claim of vicarious liability. …

Although plaintiff alleged that Smithen and Dey were employed by Catskill Regional Medical Center in the complaint, the answers of both the hospital and Smithem denied said allegation. Additionally, plaintiff served Smithem (and attempted to serve Dey) at Crystal Run. Plaintiff’s failure to act on this knowledge prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations is not the type of mistake contemplated under the relation back doctrine … . Fasce v Smithem, 2020 NY Slip Op 07010, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, , ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PETITIONER WAS THE VEHICLE INSURED BY GEICO; ARBITRATION OF PETITIONER’S DEMAND FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS FROM ALLSTATE, HER INSURER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a stay of arbitration should have been granted and a framed issue hearing granted. Respondent, Michelle Robinson, was struck from behind The driver, Randall, gave Robinson her contact information but left the scene before the police arrived. GEICO, the insurer of the offending vehicle, denied Robinson’s claim stating that Lewis, not Randall, was their insured. Robinson then demanded arbitration for uninsured motorist benefits from Allstate, her insurer. Allstate moved to stay arbitration and requested a framed issue hearing:

“The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay” … . “Thereafter, the burden shifts to the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing” … . “Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue” … .

Here, the documents submitted by Allstate in support of the petition demonstrated the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue justifying a temporary stay … . By submitting the MV-104 motor vehicle accident report and the MVR vehicle record report with the results of the license plate search for the plate number provided by Robinson, Allstate made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle involved in the subject accident had insurance coverage with GEICO at the time of the accident … .

In opposition, Robinson and the GEICO respondents raised questions of fact as to whether the offending vehicle was involved in the subject accident … . Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Robinson, 2020 NY Slip Op 07051, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION CAN BE REMEDIED BY A MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER AND BY RAISING THE DEFENSE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, explained the relationship between the waiver provisions in  CPLR 3211 (e) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1302-a in foreclosure proceedings. The opinion includes a detailed discussion of when defenses are waived by the failure to include them in the answer and when and how such omissions can be remedied by a motion to amend or in a summary judgment motion. The opinion is much too detailed to be summarized here and should be consulted as authoritative on these issues. The narrow issue addressed by the opinion is the effect of failing to raise the defense of a lack of standing in the answer to a foreclosure complaint:

… [W]e now reaffirm that a waiver of the defense of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) should be given the same force and effect as a waiver of the affirmative defenses specifically enumerated in CPLR 3211(a)(3) and (5) … . Accordingly, a waiver of the affirmative defense of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) may be retracted through the amendment of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 … . Case law from this Court should not be read to hold otherwise … . * * *

Where applicable, RPAPL 1302-a places the defense of standing on a footing comparable with the other defenses that are exempt from the waiver provisions of CPLR 3211(e), to wit, those defenses listed in subdivisions CPLR 3211(a)(2), (7), and (10), which may be raised by motion “at any time” … , or by amendment to a pleading, “if one is permitted” (CPLR 3211[e]; see CPL 3025[b]). Even where the defense of standing is omitted from a defendant’s answer in violation of CPLR 3018(b), the defense may be raised for the first time in opposition to a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment … . GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, 2020 NY Slip Op 07039, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

NONPARTY BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED POSSESSION OF A CAR SUBJECT TO CIVIL FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty banks should not have been awarded possession of cars subject to civil forfeiture proceedings brought by plaintiff:

The plaintiff commenced this civil forfeiture action pursuant to chapter 420, article II of the Code of Suffolk County, seeking forfeiture of a vehicle owned by the defendant Mary A. Nolie, and operated by an individual who was under the influence of an illegal substance. Thereafter, nonparty Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (hereinafter Santander), which held a lien on the vehicle, moved for summary judgment declaring that it was entitled to take possession of the vehicle, free and clear of any claims, and the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment awarding civil forfeiture of the vehicle. … In a judgment … , the court directed that the vehicle be released to Santander, upon demand, free and clear of any claims. …

Contrary to Santander’s contention, it was not named in this action as a noncriminal defendant against whom the County sought to “recover” seized property … . Thus, the plaintiff was not required to establish that Santander “engaged in affirmative acts which aided, abetted or facilitated the conduct of [a] criminal defendant” in order to obtain forfeiture of the subject property … . Further, an innocent lienholder is not entitled to immediate possession of a vehicle which is the subject of a civil forfeiture action, but rather is merely entitled to “satisfy its lien from the proceeds of the property after the forfeiture ha[s] been adjudicated against the guilty party” and to seek any deficiency from the debtor … . Thus, Santander failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court should have denied its motion for summary judgment declaring that it is entitled to take possession of the vehicle, free and clear of any claims. Brown v A 2014 Honda, Vin No. 5J6RM4H74EL039078, 2020 NY Slip Op 07024, Second Dept 11-25-20

Similar issues and result in Brown v A 2007 Chevrolet, Vin No. 1GNET13M372223303, 2020 NY Slip Op 07023, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to extend time to serve the defendants in the interest of justice should have been granted. Although defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction had been granted, no judgment dismissing the complaint had been entered. Therefore the action was still viable when plaintiff moved to extend time:

The defendants … moved, … pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the order and judgment entered upon their default, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. After a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the Supreme Court, by order entered March 5, 2018, granted those branches of the defendants’ motion. However, no judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction was entered. The plaintiff thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant … . * * *

… [A]n extension of time was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff demonstrated that a potentially meritorious cause of action existed, that while it timely commenced this action, the statute of limitations had expired by the time it moved to extend the time for service, and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendants as a consequence of the delay in service … . Moreover, as the interest of justice standard permits consideration of “any other relevant factor” … , this Court may consider the fact that the process server failed to comply with a subpoena to appear and give testimony at the hearing to determine the validity of service of process, thereby hampering the plaintiff’s ability to meet its burden of proof at that hearing … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Tanvir H. Chaudhury, 2020 NY Slip Op 07021, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING SUNY ALBANY’S FINDING PETITIONER VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT BY HAVING NONCONSENSUAL SEX; THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; PETITIONER ALLEGED BIAS ON THE PART OF THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX INVESTIGATOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined petitioner was entitled to discovery in petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding contesting SUNY Albany’s finding petitioner violated the school’s code of conduct. The student was accused of sexual misconduct, but the alleged victim had no memory of the incident. The investigation was conducted by respondent Chantelle Cleary, the Title IX coordinator at the school:

We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for discovery. In a special proceeding such as this, discovery is available only by leave of court (see CPLR 408 …). “Among the factors weighed are whether the party seeking disclosure has established that the requested information is material and necessary, whether the request is carefully tailored to obtain the necessary information and whether undue delay will result from the request” … . Petitioner’s motion requested the disclosure of, among other things, “[r]ecordings of all meetings and interviews” between petitioner and the Title IX investigators, as well as “[r]ecordings of all interviews of all witnesses” conducted in furtherance of the investigation. Petitioner cited the alleged bias of Cleary, and the attendant bias on his guarantee of an impartial investigation, as the reason the requested discovery was “material and necessary”; respondents did not argue that the requested discovery was overbroad or would cause undue delay. Thus, we find that petitioner met the requirements for discovery … . …

Here, where the nonconsensual nature of the sexual activity was not predicated on the reporting individual’s verbal and physical manifestation of nonconsent — but on her ability to knowingly consent due to excessive inebriation — and the reporting individual avers no memory of the activity, the Board’s determination was necessarily heavily reliant on that part of the referral report that contained a summary of statements of persons who had observed the reporting individual during Friday evening, prior to her sexual encounter with petitioner. Notably, these are not sworn affidavits of the witnesses, but rather statements collected and compiled by the Title IX investigators. Matter of Alexander M. v Cleary, 2020 NY Slip Op 06987, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant in the interest of justice:

… [A] court may, in the interest of justice, extend the time in which a plaintiff may effectuate proper service upon a defendant (see CPLR 306-b) … . Whether to grant an extension of time for service in the interest of justice is a discretionary determination, requiring the trial court to engage in “a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case” and balance competing interests … . The trial court’s determination is guided by various factors and circumstances that may be taken into consideration, including the plaintiff’s diligence (or lack thereof), the expiration of the statute of limitations, whether the underlying cause of action is meritorious, the length in delay of service, whether the plaintiff promptly sought the extension of time and any prejudice that may be borne by the defendant … . This Court should not disturb the trial court’s discretionary determination unless such determination constitutes an abuse of discretion … . …

The statute of limitations had expired prior to plaintiff making its extension motion — a factor that weighs in favor of granting the extension motion. However, plaintiff engaged in a pattern of dilatory conduct throughout the action’s pendency over nearly a decade. Indeed, it took plaintiff roughly three years after commencing the action to file a request for judicial intervention and the case was administratively closed by Supreme Court on at least one occasion. Additionally, despite having been made aware of the service issue in April 2016, plaintiff did not ultimately move for an extension to serve the complaint until November 2018, roughly 2½ years later. Further, as Supreme Court recognized, the mortgage contains a significant error, which raises real concerns as to plaintiff’s ability to prevail upon the merits. In our view, Supreme Court weighed the appropriate factors and reasonably concluded that they did not militate in favor of plaintiff … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Kelleher, 2020 NY Slip Op 06990, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

AS NO PETITION WAS BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A FORENSIC EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction when it issued a forensic evaluation because no petition was before the court:

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of two children (born in 2004 and 2006). In July 2018, the parties stipulated in open court to a settlement of the father’s modification of custody petition and violation petitions then pending in Family Court. The parties stipulated to, among other things, suspension of the collection of accrued child support arrears and, as relevant here, agreed to engage in family counseling and to a protocol for the selection of a therapist. The transcript of the parties’ stipulation of settlement was incorporated by reference into a consent order entered in March 2019. Thereafter, the parties failed to agree on the selection of a therapist, prompting the father to request that the court appoint as a therapist a licensed psychiatrist versed in parental alienation. In June 2019, the court appointed a psychologist, but the psychologist declined to provide counseling services. By letter, the father then, among other things, requested that the court order a forensic evaluation by a different licensed psychologist. After converting the father’s request to an application for a court-ordered forensic evaluation, the court ordered a forensic evaluation over the mother’s objection. The mother appealed from that order, and we granted the mother’s subsequent motion for a stay of Family Court’s order pending resolution of this appeal … . * * *

Less than one year after the stipulation was incorporated by reference into a consent order, Family Court … ordered a forensic evaluation, citing the “unusual situation” whereby the parties stipulated to — and the court ordered — counseling and all efforts failed. This was error, as no petition had been filed by the father since the March 2019 consent order was entered, and no proceedings were therefore pending to provide Family Court with jurisdiction to render the appealed-from order directing a forensic evaluation (see Family Ct Act §§ 154-a, 251 [a] … ). Indeed, as is the case here, an expectation of finality derives from a stipulation of settlement entered into by those with legal capacity to negotiate … . Accordingly, we find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order a forensic evaluation. Matter of James R. v Jennifer S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06997, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident was properly granted. The defendant, in his deposition, claimed he was unable to stop at the red light because the floor mat had rolled up under the brake pedal. The plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The majority considered defendant’s testimony hearsay and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The dissenters argued the hearsay rule did not apply because plaintiff submitted the deposition and thereby raised triable issues of fact, or, in the alternative, waived any objection to the hearsay:

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendant was negligent in his operation of the vehicle inasmuch as defendant failed to stop at a red light … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies here … . The emergency doctrine provides that, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the [driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . However, “[t]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . Stated differently, “it is settled law that the emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … . Further, although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is not by itself sufficient to defeat such a motion … . Here, defendant testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was not sure why he could not apply his brakes. He learned after the accident from a body shop mechanic that “[t]he floor pad was rolled up underneath the brake pedal.” He also testified that the floor mat sliding underneath his brakes was “the only reason [he could] think of” for his inability to brake. In view of that deposition testimony, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on the emergency doctrine was based solely on hearsay and speculation and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact whether that doctrine applies. The record includes no affidavit or deposition testimony from defendant’s mechanic. Watson v Peschel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06880, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEFENSE EXPERT USING DECEDENT’S HUSBAND’S DEPOSITION IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW VIOLATION CASE; THE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, A NONPARTY, WAS AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to cross-examine the defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, who was available to testify. The defense motion to set aside the verdict in this negligence and Public-Health-Law violation case should have been granted:

Supreme Court erred in allowing plaintiff to cross-examine a defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, a nonparty. CPLR 3117 limits the use of a nonparty’s deposition at trial to either the impeachment of that nonparty as a witness … , or for “any purpose against any other party” in case of the nonparty’s unavailability at trial … . Here, plaintiff was not using the husband’s deposition testimony to impeach the husband’s own trial testimony, and the husband was available and testified at trial. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, CPLR 4515 does not permit a party to cross-examine an expert with all the materials that the expert reviewed in formulating his or her opinion, regardless of the independent admissibility of those materials … . “That statute provides only that an expert witness may on cross-examination ‘be required to specify the data and other criteria supporting the opinion’ ” … . Because the testimony pertained directly to the central issue to be resolved by the jury, i.e., the quality of care that decedent received, the error was not harmless … . Williams v Ridge View Manor, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06894, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

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