You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING STEMMING FROM A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED; MOTHER HAD SUCCESSFULLY PARTICIPATED IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SINCE THE NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE OLDER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a derivative neglect finding stemming from a motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Mother had participated in mental health treatment and had made progress since the prior neglect findings with respect to her older children:

Although there is no express provision for a summary judgment procedure in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding, summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 may be granted in such a proceeding when there is no triable issue of fact outstanding (see Family Ct Act § 165[a] …). In support of its motion, ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] submitted the court’s prior orders determining that the mother neglected the two older children … . While there were findings of neglect as to the subject child’s two siblings, “there is no per se rule that a finding of neglect of one sibling requires a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the other siblings. The focus of the inquiry . . . is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” … . …

… ACS failed to establish as a matter of law that, under the circumstances, the neglect of the subject child’s siblings merits a finding of derivative neglect as to the subject child … . The medical records submitted by ACS demonstrated that the mother had failed to comply with her mental health treatment in late 2016, which noncompliance was a basis of the prior findings of neglect. However, the records submitted also demonstrated that the mother recommenced treatment in early 2017, immediately after the finding of neglect as to the second child, Akira, and that the mother was thereafter compliant and made positive progress in her mental health treatment for the following year. Accordingly, it cannot be said that ACS established, prima facie, that the mother derivatively neglected the subject child through her failure to resolve the same issues that were the basis for the prior findings of neglect as to the two older children … . Matter of Azayla K. L. (Aleisha L.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05902, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, , ,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff properly raised res ipsa loquitur in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment even though the notice of claim and the complaint did not allege it. Res ipsa loquitur is not a theory of liability, it is a rule of evidence:

Plaintiff investigated a hissing sound coming from the electrical circuit box in her apartment and as she drew close to the circuit box, it suddenly burst into flame, burning her right arm. Plaintiff may raise res ipsa loquitur in opposition to defendant’s motion without having alleged the doctrine in her notice of claim or complaint, as it is not a separate theory of liability, but rather, an evidentiary rule that involves “‘a common sense application of the probative value of circumstantial evidence'” … . Plaintiff’s evidence raised triable issues as to application of the doctrine, as it showed that she had resided in the apartment for nearly 19 years, she would contact defendant’s employees to remedy any issues with the circuit box, and defendant’s employees handled the inspection, maintenance, and repair of the circuit box … . To the extent defendant argues its lack of notice of the alleged dangerous condition, a triable issue of fact exists here regarding the applicability of the res ipsa doctrine, and proof of notice of a dangerous condition may be inferred under the doctrine … . Townsend v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 05874, First Dept 10-20-20

 

NEW YORK RECOGNIZES CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHEN A CLASS ACTION IS FILED IN ANOTHER STATE OR FEDERAL COURT; THE TOLLING ENDS UPON DISMISSAL OF THE OUT-OF-STATE ACTION, EVEN WHEN NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a three-judge partial dissent, answering certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined: (1) New York recognizes the tolling of the statute of limitations for absent members of putative class actions filed in other state and federal courts (cross-jurisdictional tolling); and (2) the tolling of the statute ceases when the filed actions are terminated, even for reasons not on the merits (i.e., forum non conveniens or a denial of certification for any reason). Here class actions stemming from the use of a pesticide (nematicide) in the growing of bananas, involving foreign plaintiffs from countries where bananas are grown, were filed in Texas in 1993. The Texas actions were dismissed in 1995. The instant action was filed in 2012 in the Southern District of New York:

We conclude that a determination that tolling is not available cross-jurisdictionally would subvert article 9—the primary function of which is to allow named plaintiffs to bring truly representative lawsuits without necessitating a multiplicity of litigation that squanders resources and undermines judicial economy, while still ensuring that defendants receive fair notice of the specific claims advanced against them. CPLR article 9 is closely related to and modeled on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 23 …, and the same animating policies the United States Supreme Court discussed in American Pipe [414 US 538] and its progeny also underlie article 9. * * *

Because recognition of cross-jurisdictional tolling implicates our statutes of limitations, a bright-line rule is necessary to provide clarity to all parties in understanding their rights and obligations and, in fairness—as with the policies underlying the application of statutes of limitations, generally—to balance the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, we hold that tolling ends—as a matter of law—when there is a clear dismissal of a putative class action, including a dismissal for forum non conveniens, or denial of class certification for any reason. Under those circumstances, future plaintiffs are on notice that they must take steps to protect their rights because the litigation no longer compels the court to address class certification or the named plaintiffs to advance absent class members’ interests. At that point, it is no longer objectively reasonable for absent class members to rely upon the existence of a putative class action to vindicate their rights, and tolling is extinguished … . Thus, in this case, the 1995 Texas orders that dismissed that action on forum non conveniens grounds ended tolling, as a matter of law. Chavez v Occidental Chem. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05839, CtApp 10-20-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH VACATING A JUDGMENT STEMMING FROM A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST ORDINARILY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION, A MOTION TO VACATE IS APPROPRIATE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE COURT WHICH ENTERED THE JUDGMENT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; HERE THE MOTION TO VACATE WAS THE CORRECT VEHICLE BUT THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that ordinarily the only way to vacate a judgment entered by the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment is a plenary action. However, if, as here, the ground for vacating the judgment is the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a motion to vacate is proper. Here, although the motion was the proper vehicle, the court did have jurisdiction to enter the judgment:

“Generally, a person seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment must commence a separate plenary action for that relief” … . However, a claim that the court lacked the authority to enter the judgment is an exception to the general rule requiring a plenary action, and may be raised by a motion to vacate … . Thus, the defendants’ contention that the Supreme Court, Westchester County, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a confession of judgment against them was properly raised by way of motion. Nevertheless, the contention is without merit. Pursuant to the version of CPLR 3218(b) applicable at the time the affidavit of confession was filed, “the clerk of the county designated in the affidavit” had authority to enter a judgment by confession against a nonresident defendant (former CPLR 3218[b]). Funding Metrics, LLC v A & A Fabrication & Polishing Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05724, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT AFTER IT WAS DEEMED A DEFENSE VERDICT VIOLATED THE BINDING SUMMARY TRIAL STIPULATION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined granting the motion to set aside the verdict in this personal injury trial violated the binding summary jury trial stipulation which was entered into pursuant to Richmond County Summary Jury Trial Rules:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to submit this matter to a binding summary jury trial pursuant to the Richmond County Summary Jury Trial Rules.

In its verdict sheet, the jury found that the [defendant’s] … negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, but went on to assess her percentage of fault at 49%. The jury did not determine whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury and did not award any damages. Upon receiving the jury’s verdict sheet, the Supreme Court informed the jury that “there was no need to go on past” the finding that [defendant’s] negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, and after ascertaining that all six jurors had signed the form, the trial court dismissed the jurors and announced that “[t]his constitutes a defense verdict.”

Four days later, the plaintiff moved, in effect, to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was internally inconsistent, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

As the defendants contend, the Supreme Court “exceeded the boundaries of the parties’ agreement by setting aside the verdict” … . Conio v Talarico, 2020 NY Slip Op 05720, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, , ,

THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a detailed, fact-specific opinion by Justice Scheinkman, criticized the piecemeal approach to the decisions made by Supreme Court in this divorce proceeding, which resulted in an inadequate record for the appellate court. The Second Department took it upon itself to resolve the factual issues which could be gleaned from the record. The factual discussion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. With respect to the piecemeal decision-making and the inadequate record on appeal the court wrote:

These appeals and cross appeal, as well as the two other appeals in the same case also decided today, are a graphic illustration of the prolixity that may ensue when a complicated matrimonial case is cabined into constituent parts which are heard and decided piecemeal by the Supreme Court. The court bifurcated the trial into phases but, in the end, only conducted one of the two promised phases of the trial. Because some of the issues did not lend themselves to a neat division, the issues, and the court’s seriatim determination of them, overlap. As a consequence of the incremental approach to the serial determination of the significant issues raised, which were followed by sequential appeals and cross appeals from the various orders and the final judgment, which appeals are prosecuted on voluminous appendices and supplemental appendices, this Court has not been provided with either a clear, comprehensible, and accessible record or a unified, comprehensive analysis by each party as to what determinations were made by the Supreme Court and which of those decisions each party accepts or challenges. Moreover, with respect to equitable distribution of the parties’ substantial investment assets, the judgment of divorce entered by the court merely incorporated by reference its prior decisions, without specifying what is actually ordered, adjudged, and decreed, except that it set forth certain deviations from those prior decisions. Since the decisions conflict with each other in important respects, it is unclear what the court actually directed as to the equitable distribution of major and valuable assets. Kaufman v Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05732, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN VIRGINIA, PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE OF FORUM (NEW YORK) SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD; VIRGINIA WITNESSES MAY COME TO NEW YORK VOLUNTARILY OR THE VIRGINIA WITNESSES COULD BE DEPOSED IN VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SPECULATED ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF VIRGINIA WITNESSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s choice of forum should have been upheld:

Dalaine M. Piesker (plaintiff) was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a truck owned by defendant. Plaintiffs are residents of New York, and defendant has an office and transacts business in New York, but the accident occurred in Virginia. Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this negligence action in New York. Supreme Court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, reasoning that defendant would be prejudiced by litigating this action in New York because it would be unable to subpoena either the Virginia State Police officers who investigated the accident or the medical providers who treated plaintiff in Virginia immediately following the accident.

“[W]here a plaintiff is a New York resident, a defendant bears the heavy burden of establishing that New York is an inappropriate forum before plaintiff’s choice of forum will be disturbed” … . Defendant failed to meet that heavy burden here. Although “New York courts lack the authority to subpoena out-of-state nonparty witnesses” …, defendant submitted no evidence establishing that the investigating police officers and the emergency medical providers would not testify voluntarily in New York. The court’s speculation to the contrary is unsupported by the record. In any event, both New York and Virginia are parties to the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (see CPLR 3119; Va Code Ann § 8.01-412.10), and defendant could, if necessary, depose the subject witnesses in Virginia and thereafter introduce those depositions at trial in lieu of in-person testimony in New York (see CPLR 3117 [a] [3] [ii]). Piesker v Price Leasing Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05648, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

IN THIS FRAUD ACTION, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN ERIE COUNTY; THEREFORE THE PLACE OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, NEW YORK COUNTY, WAS PROPERLY DESIGNATED THE VENUE FOR THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined New York County was the proper venue for this fraud action because plaintiff did not demonstrate the fraudulent statements allegedly made by defendant were made in Erie County, as opposed to Cleveland, Ohio. Absent proof the statements were made in Erie County, the fact that defendant resides in New York County controlled:

… New York County is indisputably a proper county based upon defendant’s residence therein (see CPLR 503 [a]). Because none of the parties resides in Erie County, the sole question before the trial court was whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Erie County … . …

The legislature only recently added a provision to CPLR 503 (a) that allows venue based on the location of the events underlying the claim … , but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain an identical provision (see 28 USC § 1391 [b] [2]), doubtless the model for the amended language in CPLR 503 (a). In determining whether venue is proper under that provision, the Second Circuit applies a two-part inquiry. First, the court must “identify the nature of the claims and the acts or omissions that the plaintiff alleges give rise to those claims” … . Second, the court must “determine whether a substantial part of those acts or omissions occurred in the district where suit was filed, that is, whether ‘significant events or omissions material to [those] claim[s] . . . have occurred in the district in question’ ” … . In a fraud claim, the act giving rise to the claim is the alleged making of the fraudulent statement … . Consistent with that, federal courts have found venue to be proper based upon “where the defendant allegedly made the fraudulent statements” … . …

Plaintiff … failed to show that material, fraudulent statements were made in Erie County … . Harvard Steel Sales, LLC v Bain, 2020 NY Slip Op 05635, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

, ,

EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION IN THE ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE WAS SUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of causation in this asbestos exposure case was sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ verdict and the motion to set aside was properly denied:

Although, to prove specific causation, plaintiff and decedent were required to establish that decedent “was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause” his alleged injuries, “it is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship” … . There simply “must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of [the] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . Such evidence may include an expert’s use of estimates generated by mathematical models taking a plaintiff’s work history into account, or the use of “more qualitative means” to determine the level of a plaintiff’s exposure, such as comparing the plaintiff’s exposure level “to the exposure levels of subjects of other studies” … . Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2020 NY Slip Op 05621, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

COMPLAINT SUING A RETAILER WHICH SOLD AMMUNITION TO A 20-YEAR-OLD WHO SHOT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the complaint alleging defendant retailer negligently sold ammunition to a 20-year old (Klocek) who shot plaintiff’s decedent properly survived a motion to dismiss. The action was not precluded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA, 15 USC 7901):

… [A] qualified civil liability action [prohibited by the PLCAA] does not include … “an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se” … or “an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought” … . …

… [P]laintiffs allege that defendant violated 18 USC § 922 (b) (1) and Penal Law § 270.00 (5) when defendant allegedly sold “handgun ammunition” to Klocek, who was 20 years old at the time. The federal statute prohibits the sale or delivery of ammunition “other than . . . ammunition for a shotgun or rifle” to anyone the seller or deliverer “knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age” (18 USC § 922 [b] [1]). The state statute prohibits the sale of ammunition “designed exclusively for use in a pistol or revolver” to anyone not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver (Penal Law § 270.00 [5]). Plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish that defendant committed a predicate offense under 15 USC § 7903 (5) (A) (ii) and, as a result, establish that this action is not a qualified civil liability action and not subject to immediate dismissal. King v Klocek, 2020 NY Slip Op 05619, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

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