You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s motion for summary judgment on his petition to terminate his child support obligations based on the children’s constructive emancipation was properly denied, and mother’s motion for summary judgment dismissing father’s petition should not have been granted. The basis for both rulings was the inadmissible evidence submitted by father and mother:

… [W]e conclude that the father did not meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing that their refusal to visit with him was unjustified … . Inasmuch as the father’s own submissions suggest that the subject children did not want to visit him due to their purported knowledge of the sex abuse allegations, his submissions failed to eliminate all material issues of fact … . Indeed, the father failed to establish that his behavior “was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with [the subject] children” … . Thus, we conclude that the court properly denied his motion.

We also conclude that the court should not have granted that part of the mother’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition. The court erred in relying on the unsworn letters from the subject children’s psychologist because they were not in admissible form … . Without the letters from the children’s psychologist, we conclude that the mother failed to meet her initial burden on her motion of establishing that the children were justified in abandoning the father by refusing to attend visitation. Like the father, the mother did not submit any admissible evidence establishing the reasons for the children’s decision not to visit the father. We therefore modify the amended order accordingly. Matter of Timothy M.M. v Doreen R., 2020 NY Slip Op 06886, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KEPT RUNNING, RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed as untimely. The debt was accelerated with the first foreclosure action was commenced in 2008, starting the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The discontinuing of the that action did not revoke the acceleration:

“[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” … .

None of the other facts relied upon by the plaintiff establish that the 2008 acceleration of the loan balance was affirmatively revoked. “[D]e-acceleration notices must . . . be clear and unambiguous to be valid and enforceable” … . While the plaintiff points to the fact that the defendant purportedly received billing statements after the first action was discontinued and that the second complaint alleged a different date of default, these facts do not establish that a clear and unambiguous notice of revocation of the acceleration was given to the defendant. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Islam, 2020 NY Slip Op 06823, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION AFTER MOTHER’S DEATH; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandparent had standing to petition for visitation after mother died. Because the grandparent had standing, Family Court should have held a “best interests” hearing rather than precluding the presentation of evidence and granting father’s petition to deny the petition:

… [I]t is undisputed that the maternal grandparents have standing based upon the death of the child’s mother. Since the maternal grandparents have standing, the Family Court should have proceeded to conduct a best interests determination based upon admissible evidence … . Instead, the maternal grandparents were not permitted to present any evidence, no testimony was taken from any of the parties, and no in camera interview with the child was conducted. We disagree with the court’s determination to grant the father’s application, in effect, to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding without first conducting a hearing … . Matter of Jafer v Marasa, 2020 NY Slip Op 06789, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the traffic accident action to active status in 2019 after the note of issue had been vacated in 2012 should have been granted. The doctrine of laches does not apply where there has been not service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216:

CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action … . Further, there was neither a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .

Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” … . “The procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)” … . In the absence of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status should have been granted … . Guillebeaux v Parrott, 2020 NY Slip Op 06762, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case should have been granted because defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying:

“[T]o be admissible, opinion evidence must be based on,” inter alia, (1) “personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests,” or, (2) “where the expert does not have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests, the opinion may be based upon facts and material in evidence, real or testimonial” … . Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the defendants’ medical expert, Edward Weiland, from testifying regarding records and testimony that were in evidence and from testifying on the issue of causation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Weiland should have been permitted to testify regarding the records and testimony in evidence even if he lacked personal knowledge as to the specific injuries addressed therein … . Furthermore, Weiland should have been permitted to testify on the issue of causation, despite not having addressed this issue in his expert report, because “the issue of causation was implicit on the question of damages” … . The court’s errors in limiting Weiland’s testimony were not harmless … . Therefore, the court should have granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict, to vacate the judgment entered thereon, and for a new trial on the issue of damages. Gubitosi v Hyppolite, 2020 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS ALLEGEDLY REVIEWED BY THE AFFIANT; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS HEARSAY AND THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the evidence of standing to bring the action was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence the action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Elizabeth Gonzales, an employee of the loan servicer. Gonzales averred that the plaintiff had been in possession of the note, which was endorsed in blank, since July 1, 2007, prior to the commencement of the action. Gonzales indicated that she had personal knowledge of the assertions set forth in her affidavit based upon, inter alia, her review of various business records. However, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which Gonzales relied in her affidavit, her assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Moreover, the plaintiff did not attach a copy of the note to the complaint when commencing the action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gulati, 2020 NY Slip Op 06754, Second Dept 11-18-20

Similar issues and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Tumelty, 2020 NY Slip Op 06766, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

, ,

A CRUCIAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF A MEDICAID LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A BUSINESS RECORD; THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY AN EMPLOYEE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE ENTITY WHICH PROVIDED THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a crucial document needed to determine the amount of a Medicaid lien should not have been admitted as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518 and 2307. The Department of Social Services (DSS) introduced a State Department of Health (SDOH) document, a claim detail report (CDR), which collected data provided by another entity (CSRA), but the certification was not by a person familiar with the business and record-keeping practices of CSRA:

DSS sought to lay the requisite foundation for admission of the CDR as a business record by way of the certification of an SDOH employee (see CPLR 2307, 4518 [c]). The certification stated, in relevant part, “that the annexed [CDR] is a true and accurate copy of the original [CDR], which was generated from data contained in the Adjudicated Claim File. The Adjudicated Claim File, a comprehensive computer data file, is created, maintained and transported in the form of magnetic media to the [SDOH] by CSRA, Inc. [(CSRA)], a fiscal intermediary which contracts with the [SDOH].” Thus, the certification clearly states that the data sought to be admitted in evidence via the CDR was “created” and “maintained” by CSRA, a third-party entity. The SDOH employee who certified the CDR did not, however, work for CSRA, i.e., the entrant of the information upon which the CDR is based. Further, although the certification stated that the CDR was “produced” in the regular course of SDOH’s business and that the data entries were “transported” to SDOH “at or about the time that such data [was] received and incorporated into the Adjudicated Claim File,” the SDOH employee did not establish that CSRA, as “entrant[,] was under a business duty to obtain and record the” data reflected in the Adjudicated Claim File … , or that he was familiar with the record-keeping practices of CSRA and that SDOH generally relied upon CSRA’s records … . At best, the certification demonstrated only that SDOH filed and retained the data created and maintained by CSRA, which fails to establish the requisite foundation … . Matter of Joseph M.W. (Blake), 2020 NY Slip Op 06583, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , , ,

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND AGENCY ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY PLED VICARIOUS LIABILTY FOR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE NURSING HOME DEFENDANTS FOR AN ASSAULT BY A RESIDENT ON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THE COMPLAINT ALSO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PUBLIC HEALTH LAW VIOLATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately stated negligence and Public Health Law causes of action against a nursing home facility stemming from an assault on plaintiff’s decedent by another resident. The Fourth Department found the complaint adequately alleged the criteria for piercing the corporate veil, the criteria for an agency relationship among the defendants, and for a Public Health Law cause of action. The court further found plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended complaint should have been granted:

… Plaintiff alleges that the … defendants were operated in such a way “as if they were one by commingling them on an interchangeable basis or convoluted separate properties, records or control.” Significantly, plaintiff alleged that the corporate formalities were conduits to avoid obligations to the facility’s residents, and thus the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for negligence under a theory of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego … . …

… [P]laintiff’s claims in the negligence cause of action that defendants are vicariously liable under theories of agency and joint venture are … sufficiently stated. “The elements of a joint venture are an agreement of the parties manifesting their intent to associate as joint venturers, mutual contributions to the joint undertaking, some degree of joint control over the enterprise, and a mechanism for the sharing of profits and losses” … . “Agency . . . is a fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent of one person to allow another to act on his or her behalf and subject to his or her control, and consent by the other so to act” … . Plaintiff alleges in the first amended complaint that defendants acted as agents for one another and, as relevant here, that they ratified the acts of one another regarding, inter alia, operation of the facility, allocation of resources, and mismanagement of the facility. …

Plaintiff alleged that in addition to residential care, the facility provided “health-related services,” including specialized dementia care, dietary supervision, hygiene and on-site medical and psychological care. Accepting those facts as alleged in the first amended complaint as true, and affording every possible favorable inference to plaintiff, we conclude plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts to overcome defendants’ argument that the facility is an assisted living facility and not subject to those sections of the Public Health Law … . Cunningham v Mary Agnes Manor Mgt., L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 06582, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence submitted by defendant subcontractor in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action conclusively established defendant did not have the authority to supervise of control the work which caused plaintiff’s injury. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 was properly granted re the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action and should have been granted re the common law negligence cause of action:

… [T]he court properly granted defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the Labor Law causes of action because defendant submitted documentary evidence “conclusively establish[ing]” … that, “as a subcontractor, it did not have the authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiff’s injury and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200 . . . or 241 (6)” … . … [T]he documentary evidence belies plaintiff’s allegation that he is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between his employer and defendant … . … [G]iven the documentary evidence submitted in support of defendant’s motion, … the court should have also granted the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the common-law negligence cause of action against defendant … . Eberhardt v G&J Contr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, , ,

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 scaffold-fall case should have been granted. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were granted because the court found defendants exempt pursuant to the homeowner exemption. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the jury found the defendant homeowner (Nielson) was negligent in striking the scaffold with a Bobcat, but also illogically found the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we conclude that different inferences could be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether Nielson had authority to or exercised authority to direct or control the work. Affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a rational process by which a jury could find that the defendants were not exempt from liability by reason of the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and could find that they were liable under Labor Law § 200 … .

We note that, in the interest of judicial economy, the better practice would have been for the Supreme Court to reserve determination on the motion for a directed verdict on the Labor Law causes of action, and allow those causes of action to go to the jury. “There is little to gain and much to lose by granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law after . . . the evidence has been submitted to the jury and before the jury has rendered a verdict. If the appellate court disagrees, there is no verdict to reinstate and the trial must be repeated” … . …

Assuming that Nielson struck the scaffold with the Bobcat, which was the only theory of common-law negligence presented by the plaintiff, then it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Thus, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find Nielson negligent without also finding proximate cause. Brewer v Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

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