You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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

 

, ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND KILL HER BROTHER; SHE ALLEGED SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA; DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE DEMANDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND INSTRAGRAM ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s disclosure demand for the Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram accounts of infant plaintiff, as well and the last known addresses and phone numbers of infant plaintiff’s friends should have been granted. Infant plaintiff was crossing the street with her brother when he was struck and killed by a truck allegedly owned by defendant. Infant plaintiff claimed psychological injuries based upon her being in the zone of danger and witnessing her brother’s death:

… [T]he defendant demonstrated that records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts were “reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence” regarding the alleged emotional and mental trauma that the infant plaintiff suffered from as a result of the subject accident, which allegedly was, in part, evidenced by her social isolation and withdrawal … . In addition, the defendant demonstrated that its request for the last known addresses and phone numbers of three of the infant plaintiff’s friends was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the infant plaintiff’s claimed mental and emotional trauma. In response, the plaintiffs do not contend that the requested disclosure was unduly burdensome, overbroad, or otherwise improper. The Supreme Court erred in finding that disclosure of the last known addresses and phone numbers of the infant plaintiff’s three friends was improper because they would provide evidence that was cumulative of other evidence previously exchanged during discovery. Therefore, under the circumstances, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to produce the last known addresses and phone numbers of three friends of the infant plaintiff, and authorizations to obtain records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts. Abedin v Osorio, 2020 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant should have been granted in the interest of justice. The court described the difference between the “good cause” and “interest of justice” analyses and indicated that if a court finds relief is not warranted for good cause, the interest of justice analysis should then be considered:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “‘Good cause’ and ‘interest of justice’ are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b … . In considering the interest of justice standard, ‘the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statutes of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant'” … .

Although the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b, it established that an extension of time to serve the defendant was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established, among other things, that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action, that it promptly moved for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective, and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay in service … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ciafone, 2020 NY Slip Op 06580, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute should have been granted because the conditions required by CPLR 3216 were not met:

A court may not dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216 on its own initiative unless certain conditions precedent have been complied with, including the requirement that “where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court . . . ‘the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, to vacate the … order, as that order failed to set forth the specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 06576, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

FEDERAL TAX RETURNS AND EMAILS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211 (A)(1); THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) should not have been granted. Defendants submitted federal income tax returns to demonstrate the amount owed under the contract at issue:

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), “the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Further, where a court considers evidentiary material in the context of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint may only be dismissed when “it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said to that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

… {The business’s] federal income tax return, submitted by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss, was insufficient to utterly refute [the] allegation that [the business’s] 2016 profits exceeded the sum reported therein as “ordinary business income,” and to prove that this allegation was “not a fact at all.” Among other things, … the accuracy of the tax return [was disputed] … . While the defendants additionally submitted certain email correspondence … , these emails were not “documentary evidence” within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Lessin v Piliaskas, 2020 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED AN “AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE” FORM BEFORE REFUSING TREATMENT WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS RECORDS, AS ADMISSIONS, AS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST, OR PURSUANT TO THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the statements in the medical records and in depositions that plaintiff’s decedent signed an “against medical advice” (AMA) form and refused admission to the hospital constituted inadmissible hearsay and were not admissible pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519):

The defendants argue that the entries in the … Hospital records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Generally, “[a] hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” (… see CPLR 4518[a]). However, “where the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … . This is because “‘each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, must be acting within the course of regular business conduct or the declaration must meet the test of some other hearsay exception'” … . Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, because the record does not reflect that the source of the information in the entries was known, it cannot be established whether the source had a duty to make the statement or whether some other hearsay exception applied … . …

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the deposition testimony of {the doctors] was admissible. Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [doctors] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute …. Moreover, they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 06504, 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