You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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

 

, ,

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SATISFY THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of the complaint in the interest of justice should have been granted. The Third Department noted that defendant had waived the statute of limitations defense by not asserting it in an answer or a motion to dismiss and Supreme Court should not have cancelled the mortgage because defendant did not request that relief:

… [D]efendant contends … that her default was properly vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not raise any argument as to whether service was properly effectuated upon defendant or whether a traverse hearing should have been granted. … Plaintiff instead argues that it was entitled to an extension of time under CPLR 306-b to cure any service defects.

To that end, a plaintiff may be granted an extension of time to serve process upon a defendant “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . Even if we agreed with defendant that plaintiff failed to satisfy the good cause standard of CPLR 306-b, we find that plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time in the interest of justice. “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . The record discloses that, approximately one month after commencing this action, plaintiff made numerous attempts to serve defendant at the address provided on the mortgage documents. Plaintiff likewise cross-moved for an extension of time to cure any service defects approximately one month after defendant raised the issue of improper service. Furthermore, defendant does not argue, nor does the record indicate, that she would suffer any prejudice if an extension of time was granted. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that plaintiff demonstrated the merits of its claim, plaintiff’s cross motion, to the extent that it sought an extension of time to serve process in the interest of justice, should have been granted … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 06184, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

, ,

PETITIONER, THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT, SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT THE RESPONDENT REPAIR SHOP’S GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN WAS NULL AND VOID ALLEGING IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE SALE TO PAY OFF THE LIEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LIEN LAW, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SURREPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petition, brought by the owner of a leased vehicle damaged in an accident, seeking a declaration that the respondent repair shop’s garagekeeper’s lien was null and void because it did not authorize the repair, should not have been granted. Although the notice of the sale to pay off the lien did not comply with the Lien Law, evidence submitted by the petitioner in suureply should not have been considered. Therefore the petition should not have been granted on the merits and respondent repair shop should have been allowed to submit an answer:

Accepting that respondent attempted “with due diligence” to personally serve the notice upon petitioners within the county where the lien arose, however, the notice was not sent via “certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail” as required to accomplish service under Lien Law § 201 … . Those service requirements are meant “to insure that [owners] have an adequate opportunity to reclaim their vehicles” … and, inasmuch as a garagekeeper’s lien is a statutory creation in derogation of common law, the failure to comply with them renders service defective … . Accordingly, in view of respondent’s failure to serve the notice in the manner required by the Lien Law, the time in which to commence this proceeding challenging the lien never began to run … . …

Supreme Court did abuse its discretion, however, in rebuffing respondent’s request to serve an answer and instead granting the petition on the merits. There was nothing to show that respondent was not a registered repair shop during the relevant period, and respondent asked petitioners to review a vehicle lease agreement that it believed conferred actual authority upon [the lessee] to authorize repairs on [petitioner’s] behalf … .  Petitioners instead provided that agreement for the first time in their surreply papers, a belated attempt to introduce new factual information to which respondent could not respond and that should have been rejected … . Matter of Daimler Trust v R&W Auto Body, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous treatment applied such that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether [defendant’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, including rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the [the rehabilitation center’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, which included rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management treatment through January 2015, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . Wright v Southampton Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06170, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

THE 90-DAY NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because the 90-day notice was defective:

On November 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a certification order which, inter alia, certified the matter for trial and directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days. The order provided that “[i]f plaintiff does not file a note of issue within 90 days this action is deemed dismissed without further order of the Court. (CPLR 3216).” The plaintiff failed to file a note of issue, and the action was ministerially dismissed, without further notice to the parties. …

An action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon ‘the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the ‘default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him [or her] for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . …

The certification order, which purported to serve as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective as it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . Moreover, it is evident from the record that the action was ministerially dismissed without a motion or notice to the parties, and there was no order of the court dismissing the action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Arias, 2020 NY Slip Op 06108, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and the bank did not demonstrate it had standing the bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Sherry Benight, who was employed as a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), which began servicing the subject loan on the plaintiff’s behalf on July 15, 2015, as well as copies of the purported notices, dated July 22, 2013. Although one of the notices contained a first-class mail 10-digit barcode, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter was actually sent by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. In her affidavit, Benight stated that she could confirm that the notice was sent to the defendant on July 22, 2013. However, Benight did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing. Further, since she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bank of America, N.A., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . To the extent that Benight relied upon a screenshot of a TrackRight Transaction Report, she failed to establish how or when the report was created, that it was made in the regular course of business, or that it was created soon after the notices were purportedly mailed to the defendant … . …

The plaintiff also attempted to establish standing through the submission of Benight’s affidavit, but this also was insufficient. Benight asserted that the original note was delivered to the plaintiff on September 7, 2004, and that the plaintiff had since remained in possession of the note. Benight, however, did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s receipt of the note, did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, and also did not submit any admissible business records to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Porfert, 2020 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

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