You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FIRED AFTER REJECTING THE SEXUAL ADVANCES OF HER MANAGER IN THIS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF THE RECORDS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OSTENSIBLY FIRED (TARDINESS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this New York State and New York City Human Rights Law action (alleging plaintiff was terminated after rejecting the sexual advances of her manager) was entitled to the records of other employees who engaged in the conduct for which plaintiff was ostensibly fired (tardiness):

“A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination in employment by showing that ‘(1) [he or] she is a member of a protected class; (2) [he or] she was qualified to hold the position; (3) [he or] she was terminated from employment . . .; and (4) the discharge . . . occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination'” … . “‘A showing of disparate treatment—that is, a showing that the employer treated plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside [of] his protected group—is a recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination for purposes of making out a prima facie case'” … . “Whether two employees are similarly situated ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury” … . When plaintiffs seek to draw inferences of discrimination by showing that they were similarly situated in all material respects to the individuals to whom they compare themselves, their circumstances need not be identical, but there should be a reasonably close resemblance of facts and circumstances” … . The key is that they be “similar in significant respects” … . …

Since the plaintiff alleges disparate treatment and seeks to raise an inference of discrimination, she is entitled to discovery of documents regarding other employees who engaged in conduct similar to that for which she was terminated, as such documents may indicate that some or all of those employees were not terminated and may have been disciplined less severely or not at all … . Diaz v Minhas Constr. Corp., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06496, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSES OF ACTION TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN AND BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract action brought by defendant home improvement contractor should have been granted because the complaint did not allege plaintiff was licensed as a home improvement contractor:

… [The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the parties had cohabited and shared an intimate relationship over a period of approximately two years, and that the plaintiff had performed extensive home improvement contracting work on the defendant’s residence in Rockland County during that period in reliance on the defendant’s promise that he would be reimbursed for the work following the impending sale of the residence. Claiming that the defendant had subsequently reneged on their arrangement, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien he had filed against the residence, to recover damages for breach of contract, to recover in quantum meruit, and to impose a constructive trust over the residence. The defendant thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. …

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the licensing requirement of CPLR 3015(e) did not apply herein. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he clearly engaged in home improvement contracting work, and he conceded that the cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien could not survive the defendant’s challenge pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he was not a licensed home improvement contractor in Rockland County. Moreover, the complaint did not allege that he was duly licensed in Rockland County during the relevant time period (see Code of the County of Rockland, chapter 286, § 3), and the plaintiff never disputed that he did not possess the necessary license. Thus, the causes of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, to recover damages for breach of contract, and to recover in quantum meruit should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … .Cunningham v Nolte, 2020 NY Slip Op 06493, Second Dept 11=12=20

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was sufficient, but the bank’s proof of standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a person employed by the plaintiff as a business operations analyst, who described the procedure by which mailings were documented in a correspondence log, and laid a foundation for consideration of business records he submitted. Annexed to the affidavit was a copy of excerpts of the correspondence log, which indicated that notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304 were sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. The plaintiff also submitted, inter alia, a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS certified mail barcode, and a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS first-class mail barcode, along with copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices sent to the defendant. …

… [T]he plaintiff submitted a copy of the note, along with a paper, which was labeled an allonge, containing an endorsement in blank. However, the plaintiff did not submit evidence to indicate that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof, as required under UCC 3-202(2) … . Moreover, at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff did not append a copy of the purported allonge … . The affidavits submitted by the plaintiff do not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action … .  Citimortgage, Inc. v Ustick, 2020 NY Slip Op 06489, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, ,

WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS ESTABLISHED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should not have been set aside. Plaintiff used a ladder which kicked out from under him. The Second Department included a clear explanation of when a fall from a ladder is actionable under Labor Law 240 (1). If for example plaintiff merely loses his or her balance and falls off a stable ladder, the incident is not actionable. However, if the ladder shifts or slides for no apparent reason, the incident is actionable:

To establish a violation under Labor Law § 240(1), “[t]here must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … . Where, for instance, the plaintiff falls from a ladder because the plaintiff lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … . By contrast, where a ladder slides, shifts, tips over, or otherwise collapses for no apparent reason, the plaintiff has established a violation … . …

…[W]we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to set aside the jury verdict and direct judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. At the trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence as to whether adequate safety devices—namely, the CTS [the employer’s] ladders and/or the scissor lift—were available, whether the plaintiff knew that he was expected to use those devices, and, if so, whether he had a good reason for choosing instead to use the non-CTS ladder … . … [C]onstruing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the plaintiff was neither a recalcitrant worker nor the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Cioffi v Target Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06487, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT SURGEON’S TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HABIT EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE DEFENSE EXPERT, WHO RELIED ON THE INSUFFICIENT HABIT EVIDENCE, DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; EVEN IF SUFFICIENT, HABIT EVIDENCE ONLY RAISES AN INFERENCE FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH WHAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AS A MATTER OF LAW; NEW EVIDENCE RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined: (1) the defendant surgeon’s (Dr. Fielding’s) testimony did not meet the criteria for habit or custom evidence; (2) habit evidence, even when sufficient, gives the jury the basis for an inference, but does not demonstrate what was done as a matter of law; and (3) a new theory raised in the reply papers should not have been considered. Dr. Fielding had no independent recollection of the operation on plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In order to lay a foundation for [the] admission [of habit evidence], Dr. Fielding needed to establish that the practice of palpitating the bowel for perforations was routinely done by him in his open bariatric surgeries, and that it did not vary from patient to patient. He did not do so. He failed to offer testimony or provide any other proof regarding the number of times he had followed such a procedure during the hundreds of bariatric surgeries he had performed … . Nor did Dr. Fielding describe the LAP-Band procedure as being routine, without variation from patient to patient. Since Dr. Fielding did not lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his testimony based on custom and practice, and the expert’s opinion was made in reliance on that testimony, defendants did not satisfy their burden of proving a prima facie case entitling them to summary judgment … . …

… [E]ven if an appropriate foundation was laid for the habit testimony that defendants’ expert relied on, the motion for summary judgment still should have been denied. Where habit evidence is admitted, it only establishes that the claimed behavior or conduct was persistent and repeated in similar circumstances … . Evidence of habit only provides a basis for the jury to draw an inference, but it cannot be the basis for judgment as a matter of law … . Guido v Fielding, 2020 NY Slip Op 06391, First Dept 11-10-20

 

, , ,

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

 

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