You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

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

 

,

FAMILY COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A NONRESIDENT PUTATIVE FATHER IN A PATERNITY ACTION AS LONG AS THE FACTS HAVE A CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STATE; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the paternity petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because there are circumstances where the New York Family Court can obtain jurisdiction over an out-of-state respondent in the paternity action:

In a paternity proceeding, personal jurisdiction over a nonresident putative father may be established pursuant to Family Court Act § 580-201. Petitioner, however, admittedly failed to allege in her petition that respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with the mother in New York State at the time of conception, or that he had any other relevant ties to New York State, and no other grounds for jurisdiction apply (see Family Ct Act § 580-201 [6], [8]). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court should have granted the motion on the ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of action predicated upon respondent’s sexual intercourse with petitioner in New York State … . Inasmuch as such a dismissal is not on the merits, however, we further conclude that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice … . Matter of Joyce M.M. v Robert J.G., 2020 NY Slip Op 05616, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE VIOLATING THE COVENANT OR RESTRICTION REQUIRING TEN FEET; PLAINTIFF, AFTER A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, WAS NOT, HOWEVER, ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant had violated a covenant or restriction imposed on property owners in a subdivision, but that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief. Defendant had constructed the home about eight feet from the property line and the covenant or restriction required ten feet:

… [D]efendant knew, or should have known, of the side setback violation on the right side, yet he chose to construct his house in disregard of the fourth paragraph of the covenants and restrictions, defendant did not act in good faith with respect to that violation, and the hardship was self imposed … . … [E]nforcement of the restriction would have little benefit to plaintiff inasmuch as the violation had no impact on the value of plaintiff’s home, the violation did not detract from any neighbor’s view of the lake, and the violation occurred on the side of defendant’s property that was not adjacent to another residential lot. A balancing of the equities under all the circumstances of the case established that plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief for the right side lot line violation … . Kleist v Stern, 2020 NY Slip Op 05652, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEALED THE ENTIRE COURT RECORD, REDACTION IS APPROPRIATE FOR TRADE SECRETS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the entire court record should not have been sealed. The facts were not discussed, but the court noted redaction is appropriate to protect trade secrets, confidential business information or proprietary information:

We reverse the order of the motion court for two reasons. First, the motion court erred by sealing the entire court file. As we have previously explained, “We recognize that it may be easier for the parties and the motion court to seal an entire court record, rather than make a determination on a document by document basis about sealing, but administrative convenience is not a compelling reason to justify sealing” … . Indeed, “In camera review and appropriate redaction is a valid method of protecting trade secrets” …

Second, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing grounds for protecting from public access any or all of the information in Exhibit A to the complaint, let alone the entire court record. They failed to show that Exhibit A, or any other document likely to become part of the record, contains trade secrets, confidential business information, or proprietary information … . Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05610,First Dept 10-8-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, setting aside the verdict for future damages and ordering a new trial on that issue, determined the awards for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses rendered the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering a material deviation from reasonable compensation:

Plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the verdict was inconsistent because the claim was raised after the jury had been discharged. However, where the jury verdict awards plaintiff damages for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses, but declines to award damages for future pain and suffering, the verdict on future pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation … . Paucay v D.P. Group Gen. Contrs./Devs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05611, First Dept 10-8-20

 

CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendant should have been granted and explained the criteria:

CPLR 306-b provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action. . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.”

“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. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute 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”… . CPLR 306-b “empowers a court faced with the dismissal of a viable claim to consider any factor relevant to the exercise of its discretion. No one factor is determinative—the calculus of the court’s decision is dependent on the competing interests of the litigants and a clearly expressed desire by the Legislature that the interests of justice be served” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, considering, inter alia, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff’s prompt request for the extension, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice to the defendant … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Viera, 2020 NY Slip Op 05549, Second Dept 10-7-2

 

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