You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

SUBPOENA SEEKING 1099 FORMS SHOWING THE INSURER’S PAYMENTS TO TWO DOCTORS WHO PERFORM MEDICAL EXAMS FOR THE INSURER IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED; WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENA FOR THE MEDICAL RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXAMS, THAT ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY SUPREME COURT AND CAN NOT, THEREFORE, BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry addressing a matter of first impression in the Third Department, determined the plaintiffs’ subpoena seeking 1099 forms (encompassing several years) issued by the insurer to the two doctors (Seigel and Hughes) who performed the medical examination of the plaintiff in this traffic accident case should not have been quashed. The payment records may provide information relevant to the doctors’ bias in favor of denying coverage. However the subpoena for the medical records for the examinations conducted by the two doctors was not addressed by the motion court and therefore could not be addressed on appeal:

The CPLR extends “full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” to nonparties (CPLR 3101 [a] [4] …). “The words, ‘material and necessary,’ are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . “A subpoena will be quashed only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . …

… [T]he 1099 forms that plaintiffs seek would disclose the amount of compensation that Siegel and Hughes received for performing evaluations on defendant’s behalf and, with questioning, may reveal a financial incentive that the physicians have in testifying. A financial incentive is a relevant consideration in “ascertain[ing] any possible bias or interest on the part of [the physicians]” … . Given the liberal interpretation afforded the terms “material and … necessary” used in the CPLR … , and the general acceptance of testing a witness for bias and interest , we thus find that the financial records are discoverable … . Loiselle v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06325, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO RESETTLE WHICH IMPROPERLY SOUGHT THE MODIFICATION OF A SUBSTANTIVE PART OF AN ORDER, AS OPPOSED TO MERELY THE CORRECTION OF A MISTAKE, IS NOT APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the denial of the motion to resettle was not appealable and explained the criteria. The motion sought the modification of a substantive part of an order, which is not available pursuant to a motion to resettle:

“‘Resettlement of an order is a procedure designed solely to correct errors or omissions as to form, or for clarification. It may not be used to effect a substantive change in or to amplify the prior decision of the court'” … . “Under established precedent, no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to resettle or clarify a substantive portion of an order” . [The instant] … motion does not seek to amend or clarify the prior order, but seeks to modify a substantive portion of the prior order….  As such, the denial of said motion is not appealable … . Hutchings v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06327, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

, , , ,

THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s allegation the defendant doctors derotated her pelvis (a chiropractic procedure) during spine fusion surgery sounded in battery, not medical malpractice, because the claim alleged intentional, not negligent, conduct. Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. Plaintiff’s expert, a chiropractor, was not qualified to offer an opinion about the surgery performed by the defendants:

… [A]ny claim that defendants derotated plaintiff’s pelvis as a separate procedure from the surgery to which she consented is necessarily an allegation that they acted intentionally. Despite the fact that plaintiff’s complaint alleges only negligence, “when a patient agrees to treatment for one condition and is subjected to a procedure related to a completely different condition, there can be no question but that the deviation from the consent given was intentional” … . As such, this claim is subject to the one-year statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery — that is, “intentional physical contact with another person without that person’s consent” — rather than the 2½-year period applicable to medical malpractice claims … . Young v Sethi, 2020 NY Slip Op 06330, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

, ,

THE TRUSTEES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES DEFENSES TO THE ACTION SEEKING AN ESTATE ACCOUNTING; THE TRUSTEES DID NOT OPENLY REPUDIATE THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE TIME DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FOR EITHER DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the action seeking an estate accounting should not have been dismissed as untimely because the statute of limitations had not been triggered by an open repudiation of the trustees’ fiduciary obligations. A similar open repudiation is necessary for a laches defense as well:

A proceeding to compel an accounting by a fiduciary is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). “It is well settled that the statutory clock begins to run when the trustee openly repudiates his [or her] fiduciary obligations” or there is a judicial settlement of the fiduciary’s account … . “For a trustee to invoke a Statute of Limitations defense, a mere lapse of time is insufficient without proof of an open repudiation” … . There must be proof of a repudiation by the fiduciary “‘which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries'” … , “viewed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case” … . The party seeking the benefit of the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue of open repudiation  … . “Where there is any doubt on the record as to the conclusive applicability of a Statute of Limitations defense, the motion to dismiss the proceeding should be denied” … . Matter of Eisdorfer, 2020 NY Slip Op 06258, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this foreclosure action should not have been, sua sponte, dismissed for failure to take steps to procure a default judgment within one year. Plaintiff moved for an order of reference within one year. It doesn’t matter that the motion was withdrawn:

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)  … . “Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes ‘the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference’ to establish that it ‘initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default,’ for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference in May 2010, within one year of the defendants’ default … . In such cases, the complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), even if, as here, the plaintiff’s motion is later withdrawn … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hasan, 2020 NY Slip Op 06243, 11-4-20

 

, ,

THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE SLIP AND FALL, RENDERING THE FILING OF THE CLAIM UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim in this slip and fall case. The notice of intention to file a claim did not sufficiently identify the location of the slip and fall:

A claim to recover damages for personal injuries shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the claim accrued, unless within 90 days, the claimant serves upon the Attorney General a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within two years after the accrual of such claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] … ). The Court of Claims Act requires a claim to specify, among other things, “the time when and place where” the claim arose (Court of Claims Act § 11[b] … ). A notice of intention to file a claim must also include a statement as to when and where the claim arose … . …

… [T]he notice of intention to file a claim failed to describe the location of the alleged accident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) as the generalized description did not give notice as to where on the path the accident occurred … . Moreover, “‘[t]he State is not required to go beyond a claim or notice of intention in order to investigate an occurrence or ascertain information which should be provided pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11′” … . Further, lack of prejudice to the State is immaterial … .

As the notice of intention was deficient, it did not serve to extend the claimant’s time to file and serve a claim beyond the 90-day statutory period (see Court of Clams Act § 10[3] … ). Therefore, the claimant’s claim, which was filed approximately one year after accrual of the claim, was untimely … . Criscuola v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06241, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTED DEFENDANT WAS THE VICTIM OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD; SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s decedent’s (Renda’s) motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted in the interests of substantial justice. There was evidence Renda was the victim of a scheme to defraud and foreclosure triggers the equitable powers of the court. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint, however:

… [W]e find that the defendant is entitled to vacatur of her default in the interests of substantial justice. “In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . “A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … .

Here, the evidence submitted strongly suggests that Renda was the victim of a scheme to defraud … .

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. Here, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal, and there is no indication that the court gave the parties an opportunity to be heard regarding the dismissal of the complaint … . Caridi v Tanico, 2020 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ON DEFENDANTS’ ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV), DRIVEN BY DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT, WHO WAS INTOXICATED, WHEN THE ATV CRASHED INTO A TREE; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE IS NO COMMON LAW “NEGLIGENT PROVISION OF ALCOHOL TO A MINOR” CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST ADDRESSED IN PLAINITIFFS’ REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there is no common law cause of action in New York for negligent provision of alcohol to a minor; (2) summary judgment should have been granted on the negligence cause of action against the estate of the infant driver and owner of the all terrain vehicle (ATV); and (3) the negligent supervision cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Infant plaintiff was a passenger on the ATV driven by defendants’ decedent, who was intoxicated, when the ATV struck a tree. The court noted that the two causes of action which plaintiffs addressed only in their reply papers were properly dismissed:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of Nicola Trivigno [ATV owner} and Frankie’s [defendants’ decedent’s] estate. A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in order to establish his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law …  Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that Frankie operated the ATV while intoxicated in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Frankie’s negligence is imputed to Nicola Trivigno, who was the owner of the ATV which was being driven by Frankie with Nicola Trivigno’s permission … . Abtey v Trivigno, 2020 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ causes of action for declaratory relief and negligent procurement were properly dismissed but the causes of action for breach of contract and fraud and negligent misrepresentation should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs contracted with Con Ed to work on a gas main and requested insurance coverage for the project from defendants. Well into the project plaintiffs learned that they were not insured and they procured coverage elsewhere for a much higher premium. The declaratory judgment cause of action sought a declaration that defendants would be responsible if plaintiffs are sued for damage done when plaintiffs were uninsured. Because that circumstance may never occur the declaratory judgment cause of action was properly dismissed. The negligent procurement cause of action was properly dismissed because there were no damages. The breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed because nominal damages will support it. The fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action should not have been dismissed because a special relationship between plaintiffs and the insurance broker had been sufficiently alleged:

” … Nominal damages allow vindication of those rights” … . … “[A]ctual damages are not an essential element” of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… “Where a special relationship develops between the broker and client, [the] broker may be liable . . . for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … . “… [T]hree ‘exceptional situations’ … may give rise to such a special relationship: ‘(1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on'” … . … The plaintiffs, at a minimum, claim to have suffered damages when they, on two occasions, made bids for long-term contracts to perform gas main repair work for Con Ed that were priced, in part, based on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations as to the price of insurance coverage for that work. AB Oil Servs., Ltd. v TCE Ins. Servs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF A LANDFILL WAS PROPERLY DONE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THAT NEARBY RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).

Although the Third Department determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had properly conducted its State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the proposed modification of a landfill, the petition by nearby residents should not have been denied on the ground that the petitioners did not have standing to contest the DEC ruling:

… [A]t least some of the petitioners will suffer distinct environmental harm under the circumstances presented in these proceedings. For instance, although one might expect the visual impact of the landfill expansion to be widespread, DEC specifically found that the impact would be limited and that the areas where the individual petitioners live and/or maintain recreation facilities would be among the few having a “generally unobstructed” view of the landfill. Many of the individual petitioners confirmed that they can see the landfill from their residences, explained how they are personally impacted by the sights, sounds, smells and dust generated by operations there, and further articulated how those impacts will worsen if the landfill expansion goes forward … . Moreover, the Halfmoon petitioners alleged that those impacts will impair the use and enjoyment of Halfmoon’s public park, trails and boat launches across the river, while one of the individual Halfmoon petitioners described how she was intimately involved in the development of a trail system and boat launch along the river and was similarly concerned by those impacts … . Standing rules are not to be applied in a manner so restrictive that agency actions are insulated from judicial review and, in our view, the foregoing was sufficient to establish that at least some of the petitioners in each proceeding will suffer environmental impacts different from those experienced by the general public so as to afford standing to sue … . Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 06180, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

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