You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION CAN REVIEW THE RECORD OF A TRIAL AND FIND THE VERDICT UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; HERE THE RECORD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE DRIVER OF A NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY DUMP TRUCK ACTED RECKLESSLY BY PARKING THE TRUCK ON THE SHOULDER OF THE THRUWAY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, refusing to follow any decisions to the contrary, determined, despite the defendant’s failure to make a motion to set aside the verdict, the appellate court may review the record and render a judgment warranted by the facts. The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed the plaintiffs’ verdict in this traffic accident case. Defendant, an employee of the New York State Thruway Authority, was the driver of a dump truck parked on the shoulder of the thruway while other employees picked up debris in the median. The truck was parked 18 inches to the left of the fog line. Plaintiffs’ van drifted out of its lane and struck the back of the dump truck. The plaintiffs argued defendant was required by the relevant regulations to pull off “as far from traffic as feasible.” The Fourth Department held that, although failure to pull off the highway further than 18 inches may demonstrate a lack of due care, it did not demonstrate recklessness as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103:

… [A]t the time of the collision, defendant had parked the truck entirely outside of the travel lane approximately 18 inches to the left of the yellow fog line on or near the rumble strips located on the shoulder. Defendant had also activated multiple hazard lights on the truck, which consisted of regular flashers, two amber lights on the tailgate, beacon lights, and four flashing caution lights on the arrow board. Moreover, the undisputed evidence established that there were no weather, road, or lighting conditions creating visibility or control issues for motorists on the morning of the incident. Even if, as the court found, defendant knew or should have known that vehicles occasionally leave the roadway at a high rate of speed due to motorists being tired, distracted, or inattentive, we conclude that, here, it cannot be said that defendant’s actions were of an “unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and . . . done . . . with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . Alexandra R. v Krone, 2020 NY Slip Op 04631, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS BEFORE, BUT NOT AFTER, PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED; ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS ORAL, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS UNTIL AFTER PLANTIFF WAS TERMINATED. (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an at will employee, was not entitled to commissions on sales to any account generated by plaintiff earned after plaintiff was terminated. Although the employment contract was oral, it was not subject to the statute of frauds until after plaintiff was terminated:

General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) provides that “[e]very agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking . . . [b]y its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” “Only those agreements which, by their terms, have absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance within one year’ will fall within the statute of frauds” … .

Here, plaintiff was an at-will employee of defendant, and “an at-will employment . . . is capable of being performed within one year despite the fact that compensation remains to be calculated beyond the one-year period” … . We therefore reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for payment of commissions fixed and earned during the course of plaintiff’s employment with defendant … .

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion [for summary judgment] with respect to plaintiff’s claim for “commissions on sales to any accounts generated by [plaintiff] on a future and ongoing basis including post-termination of [plaintiff’s] employment,” i.e., the claim for commissions that would accrue subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment. Although “[a]n oral agreement that is terminable at will is capable of performance within one year and, therefore, does not come within the Statute of Frauds . . . [,] General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) bars enforcement of a promise to pay commissions that extends indefinitely, dependent solely on the acts of a third party and beyond the control of the defendant” … . Thus, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for commissions accruing subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment … . Bermel v Vital Tech Dental Labs, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04666, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN 2010 WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STARTED WAS REVOKED BEFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank raised a question of the fact whether the acceleration of the debt at the time the foreclosure action was commenced in 2010 was revoked before the six-year statute of limitations ran out:

We nevertheless agree with plaintiff that its submissions in opposition to the motion raised a question of fact whether the present action was timely commenced. It is well settled that “[a] lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, [although] it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … .

Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that its predecessor in interest mailed letters to defendants in January 2016, i.e., before the statute of limitations expired, revoking the prior acceleration of the mortgage. As plaintiff correctly contends, the evidence, including an affidavit of mailing, established that the letters were properly mailed to defendants at their address, thereby giving rise to the presumption that the letters were received by defendants … . Defendants’ unsubstantiated denial of receipt was “insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service at the address where all notices under the mortgage were to be sent” … . Moreover, on the limited record before us, we conclude that language of the letters and the surrounding circumstances raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s predecessor in interest validly revoked the prior acceleration of the mortgage and, thus, whether the present action was timely commenced … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04653, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert in this medical malpractice action did not address several of the allegations of defendant’s negligence. Therefore the unaddressed claims were deemed abandoned:

The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert anesthesiologist addressed defendant’s conduct only with respect to the claims arising from defendant’s alleged failure to ensure that the transport of Pasek [plaintiff] to the operating room was performed safely and his alleged failure to document the disconnection event and resulting blood loss in Pasek’s medical chart. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert failed to address the claims against defendant regarding the diagnosis, consulting, testing, examination, and pre- and post-operative treatment and did not identify any deviation with respect to defendant’s efforts to ventilate, monitor, or resuscitate Pasek, those claims are deemed abandoned. Supreme Court thus erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to those claims … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04652, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS SUED A FOSTER-CHILD PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE AFTER THE FOSTER CHILD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD; THE FRAUD ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT SERVICE’S MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSTER CHILD’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN 2008 DID NOT START THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the fraud cause of action was not time-barred and the defendant’s owed a duty which supported the negligence cause of action. The plaintiffs, who had a biological child, took in a foster child through Good Shepherd, a placement service. The plaintiffs were not aware that the foster child had a history of animal abuse and sexually inappropriate behavior. One day after plaintiffs’ adoption of the foster child, the child sexually assaulted the biological child. Plaintiffs sued in fraud and negligence and Supreme Court denied Good Shepard’s motion to dismiss:

A defendant’s mere knowledge of something is not an element of a fraud cause of action; instead, a fraud cause of action requires a showing of, inter alia, the false representation of a material fact with the intent to deceive … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Good Shepherd knew of the foster child’s history of animal abuse and engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior as early as May 2008, we conclude that its knowledge thereof did not demonstrate that the alleged fraud occurred at that time. Good Shepherd submitted no evidence that, in May 2008, it falsely represented the foster child’s relevant history with the intent to deceive plaintiffs. Thus, it did not establish as a matter of law that the fraud cause of action accrued in 2008 … . Moreover, Good Shepherd submitted the amended complaint, wherein plaintiffs alleged that, on numerous occasions in early 2012, they contacted Good Shepherd about the foster child’s sexually inappropriate behavior and that, on each occasion, Good Shepherd assured them that the foster child had no history of that type of behavior. We therefore conclude that Good Shepherd failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the fraud cause of action asserted in 2016 was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]). * * *

Although defendants contend that they did not owe the biological child a duty because they lacked control over the foster child during the four years that he lived with plaintiffs, control over a third-person tortfeasor is just one way to establish a duty. … [A]duty may also exist where “there is a relationship . . . between [the] defendant and [the] plaintiff that requires [the] defendant to protect [the] plaintiff from the conduct of others,” and “the key . . . is that the defendant’s relationship with either the tortfeasor or the plaintiff places the defendant in the best position to protect against the risk of harm” … . Stephanie L. v House of The Good Shepherd, 2020 NY Slip Op 04643, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

,

THE ISSUE ON A PRIOR APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE GRANTED; THE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a prior appeal in this matter did not trigger the law of the case doctrine:

… Supreme Court’s determination that certain causes of action should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) was not precluded by this Court’s determination on a prior appeal that similar causes of action were not palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit … . The law of the case doctrine applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision, and to the same question in the same case … . On the prior appeal, we determined only that the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments were not so palpably insufficient as to warrant denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. On an ensuing motion to dismiss, however, the standard is whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Katz v Hampton Hills Assoc. Gen. Partnership, 2020 NY Slip Op 04545, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

TOWN LAW PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW RE THE DISCHARGE SETBACK FOR A BOW AND ARROW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town ordinance regulating the discharge setback for a bow and arrow was preempted by the conflicting provisions in Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 11-0931:

The Town incorrectly contends that its ability to regulate the discharge setback of a bow and arrow is expressly authorized by Town Law § 130(27). That statute vests certain municipalities, including the Town, with the power to pass ordinances “prohibiting the discharge of firearms in areas in which such activity may be hazardous to the general public or nearby residents,” provided that “[t]hirty days prior to the adoption of any ordinance changing the five hundred foot rule, a notice must be sent to the regional supervisor of fish and game of the environmental conservation department, notifying him of such intention” (Town Law § 130[27]). However, that statute is premised upon a definition of the term “firearm” that does not include a bow and arrow.

The Town unpersuasively contends that it is free to define for itself the meaning of “firearm,” as used in Town Law § 130(27), so as to include “bow and arrow.” Although Town Law § 130(27) does not expressly define “firearm,” it can be readily inferred that the term is used in the same manner as in ECL 11-0931(4), which explicitly distinguishes between firearms and bows in setting forth discharge setback requirements (see ECL 11-0931[4][a][2]; see also 6 NYCRR 180.3[a] [defining “firearm” for purposes of ECL article 11]). Indeed, the mention of the “five hundred foot rule” in Town Law § 130(27) refers to the five-hundred-foot discharge setback required under ECL 11-0931(4). Construed in pari materia, these two statutory provisions employ the same terminology to regulate the same subject matter, and demonstrate that the Town may not regulate the discharge setback of a bow and arrow in a manner inconsistent with State law. Hunters for Deer, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no need for the defendants to give prior notification to the plaintiff of the defendants’ intent to call one of plaintiff’s treating doctors to testify about the cause of plaintiff’s cognitive deficits in this traffic accident case. The doctor would have testified the deficits were caused by a prior stroke. The testimony was precluded by Supreme Court because no “expert witness” notice had been provided to the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3101(d). The plaintiff was awarded $2,000,000 but the Second Department held the verdict should have been set aside:

A treating physician is permitted to testify at trial regarding causation, notwithstanding the failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1) … .”Indeed, a plaintiff’s treating physician could testify to the cause of the injuries even if he or she had expressed no opinion regarding causation in his or her previously exchanged medical report'”… . Here, the Supreme Court should not have precluded the plaintiff’s treating physician from testifying regarding causation based on the defendants’ failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1), as that provision does not apply to treating physicians … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the error in precluding this testimony cannot be deemed harmless.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on that issue. Duman v Scharf, 2020 NY Slip Op 04537, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

,

QUESTION WHETHER A CONTRACT WHICH IS SILENT ABOUT ITS DURATION WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND COULD NOT BE RESOLVED BASED UPON THE PLEADINGS ALONE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Goldman Sachs’) motion to dismiss the complaint in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The issue is whether a contract with is silent about its duration was properly terminated by Goldman. The issue requires consideration of the intent of the parties and could not be resolved based upon the pleadings:

… Supreme Court failed to examine the surrounding circumstances as well as the intent of the parties in discerning the original intent of the parties …. It improperly determined, as a matter of law, that a “reasonable time” justifying termination of the contract had elapsed and plaintiffs had not made any persuasive arguments to the contrary. In doing so, it relied upon its conclusion that Goldman was no longer receiving a meaningful benefit from the agreement, thus rejecting out of hand plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint to the contrary.

As this is a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), Supreme Court should have afforded the pleadings a liberal construction (see CPLR 3026), taken the allegations of the complaint as true, and afforded plaintiff[s] the benefit of every possible favorable inference. A motion court must only determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations should not be considered in determining a motion to dismiss … . “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Charles Schwab Corp. v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04520, First Dept 8-13-20

 

, ,

IN LIGHT OF THE REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO CLASS CERTIFICATION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE SLEEP AND BREAK HOURS DURING 24-HOUR SHIFTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, on remittal after reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined plaintiffs, home health care aides,  were not entitled to class certification on the question whether they were entitled to be paid for the sleep and break hours during 24-hour shifts. The Court of Appeals ruled that the NYS Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) finding that the flat-rate pay did not violate the Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order) was not irrational or unreasonable:

On March 26, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s decision and order, concluding that the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order did not conflict with the promulgated language and was not irrational or unreasonable … . The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ class certification motion was properly denied, considering the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order as well as alternative bases for class certification asserted by the plaintiffs.

The proponent of a motion for class certification bears the burden of establishing the requirements of CPLR article 9 … . CPLR 901 sets forth five prerequisites to class certification. “These factors are commonly referred to as the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . “A class action certification must be founded upon an evidentiary basis” … .

… [I]n light of the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate entitlement to class certification on the question of whether the defendants violated the law by failing to pay them for all hours of a 24-hour shift. Although a worker must be paid minimum wage for the time he or she is “required to be available for work at a place prescribed by the employer,” under the DOL interpretation of the Wage Order, a worker is not considered to be “available for work at a place prescribed by the employer” during designated meal and sleep breaks, totaling 11 hours of a 24-hour shift … . Moreno v Future Health Care Servs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04473, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

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