You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact for the jury precluded the directed verdict (CPLR 4401) for the defendants in this Labor Law 200 action. Plaintiff was working as a surveyor at a construction site. He was walking across a rebar grid when one of his legs fell through. There were questions of fact whether walking on the rebar grid was an inherent risk of his job and whether the grid was a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict (CPLR 4404) should have been granted:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, is subject to recognized exceptions … . It does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform, or where the contractor is engaged for the specific purpose of repairing the defect … .

Here, in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court improperly decided the factual questions of whether traversing an uncovered rebar grid was an inherent risk in the injured plaintiff’s work as a surveyor, and whether the uncovered rebar grid was a dangerous condition under the circumstances presented. The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ evidence made out a prima facie case, and that disputed factual issues existed which should have been resolved by the jury. Since the court failed to draw “every favorable inference” in favor of the plaintiffs and because the court resolved disputed issues of fact … , the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability. Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01381, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN TO ADD A TREATING DOCTOR EMPLOYED BY A NAMED DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the relation-back doctrine allowed the amendment of the complaint (CPLR 1003) in this medical malpractice, wrongful death action to add a doctor, Abergel, who treated plaintiff’s decedent and was employed by the defendant professional corporation (P.C.):

The causes of action arose out of the same conduct, to wit, the alleged negligence by [defendant] Purow and Abergel in the course of treating the decedent for her ulcerative colitis at the P.C.’s office, which they each did within the scope of their employment with the P.C. …

The vicarious liability of the P.C. allows for a finding of unity of interest with Abergel, “regardless of whether the actual wrongdoer or the person or entity sought to be charged vicariously was served first'” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the test, which focuses, inter alia, on “whether the defendant could have reasonably concluded that the failure to sue within the limitations period meant that there was no intent to sue that person at all and that the matter has been laid to rest as far as he [or she] is concerned'” … . The decedent’s medical records from the P.C. included several notes signed by Abergel, and clearly and repeatedly referenced Abergel as a physician who treated the decedent as part of the care rendered to the decedent by the P.C. * * * In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated that the failure to originally name Abergel as a defendant was the result of a mistake, and there was no need to show that such mistake was excusable … . Petruzzi v Purow, 2020 NY Slip Op 01372, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH MOVING MONEY THROUGH A NEW YORK BANK IS ENOUGH TO CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION ON OUT-OF-STATE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE NEW YORK A CONVENIENT FORUM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that, although using a New York bank for an allegedly fraudulent transaction is sufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over out-of-state parties, it does not necessarily follow that New York is a convenient forum. Supreme Court properly found New York was not a convenient forum in these actions involving individuals and corporations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as a Swiss bank:

… [T]he court properly considered the following matters, among others: (1) none of the parties to either action is a New York citizen or resident or (if an entity) is formed under New York law or has its principal place of business in New York; … (2) the alleged conduct at issue primarily occurred in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland, with the sole New York connection being the fleeting presence of the bribery funds at a nonparty New York correspondent bank while en route from the UAE to Switzerland; (3) the bulk of the relevant documentary evidence is located in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and BVI, and most witnesses are located outside New York and beyond New York’s subpoena power; (4) there is a likelihood that foreign substantive law will govern; (5) there are alternative fora available (Switzerland and the UAE) with greater connection to the subject matter; and (6) in the Pictet [bank] action, Switzerland has an interest in regulating the conduct of a bank operating within its borders … . …

As Supreme Court correctly recognized … “[o]ur state’s interest in the integrity of its banks . . . is not significantly threatened every time one foreign national, effecting what is alleged to be a fraudulent transaction, moves dollars through a bank in New York. . . . New York’s interest in its banking system is not a trump to be played whenever a party to such a transaction seeks to use our courts for a lawsuit with little or no apparent contact with New York” (Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 NY3d 129, 137 [2014] … ).

In accordance with Mashreqbank, this Court has declined to disturb the motion court’s discretionary determination that New York is not a convenient forum in cases where the sole connection to New York was the passage of wired funds through a correspondent bank in the state … . Al Rushaid Parker Drilling Ltd. v Byrne Modular Bldgs. L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 01277, First Dept 2-25-20

 

,

DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED UNDER FAMILY COURT ACT 1042, NOT CPLR 5015 AND 5511; BECAUSE RESPONDENT WAS NEVER NOTIFIED THAT A FACT-FINDING HEARING, AS OPPOSED TO A CONFERENCE, WAS GOING TO BE HELD THE DEFAULT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) the proper analysis of a default in this neglect/custody proceeding is under Family Court Act 1042, not CPLR 5015 and 5511; (2) respondent was never notified of the fact-finding; and (3) the default order must be vacated:

To begin, although Family Court and the parties assessed whether respondent was entitled to vacatur under “the default mechanism of CPLR 5015 and 5511,” the standard set forth by Family Ct Act § 1042 controls in this Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding … .. If a “person legally responsible for the child’s care” has been notified of a pending fact-finding hearing and fails to attend … . Family Court is free to conduct the hearing so long as the child is represented by counsel … . Respondent is such a person and, upon her timely motion to vacate the fact-finding order, Family Court was obliged to grant vacatur and reopen the hearing if she showed “a meritorious defense to the petition . . . [unless she] willfully refused to appear at the hearing” … . …

It was an impossibility for respondent to default in attending a hearing that she did not know was going to happen and did not, in fact, happen. Respondent was further unable to challenge details of petitioner’s evidence in the absence of a hearing and, the strength of petitioner’s proof remaining a mystery, we deem the denials in respondent’s affidavit sufficient to set forth a meritorious defense. Matter of Lila JJ. (Danelle KK.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01216, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

,

NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED AN INCONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS VISITATION/CONTACT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have ruled that New York was an inconvenient forum for a visitation/contact enforcement petition where mother is in New York and father is in Arizona with the child:

As Family Court acknowledged, it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act … . However, “[a] court of this state which has jurisdiction under this article . . . may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum” … .

An inconvenient forum determination “depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation” … . This is an enforcement petition, and the sole issue concerns the conduct of the parents vis-À-vis the current order. The vast amount of testimony as to whether the father violated the order, which is central to the issue in this proceeding, will come from the mother, who is located in New York, and any witnesses that she may call. Any testimony from the father can be presented by telephone, audiovisual means or other electronic means. Moreover, Family Court has presided over numerous proceedings between the parties related to this child … .That court is far more familiar with the case than the Arizona court and is in a better position to interpret the meaning of its own order … .

Additionally, the mother submitted an affidavit evidencing that she will not be able to travel to or retain counsel in Arizona, yet she has legal representation in New York. Family Court acknowledged her indigency and that it was unable to conclude whether Arizona could provide indigent legal representation to her. Matter of Sadie HH. v Darrin II., 2020 NY Slip Op 01219, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

FATHER’S INCARCERATION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES RE FATHER’S VISITATION/CONTACT PETITIONS; HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; VISITATION PETITIONS NEED NOT BE VERIFIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) father’s incarceration constituted a change in circumstances; (2) father’s petition for visitation and contact triggered the need for a hearing to determine the best interests of the child; and (3) verification of a visitation petition is not required by CPLR 3020 or Family Ct Act article 6:

… [W]e find that the father demonstrated a change in circumstances arising from his incarceration … .

We note that “[v]isitation with a noncustodial parent, even one who is incarcerated, is presumed to be in the best interests of the child[]” . Further, “as a general matter, custody determinations …  be rendered only after a full and plenary hearing” … . This guideline applies to requests for visitation and contact, as presented here … . Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient information allowing a comprehensive review of the child’s best interests, Family Court erred in dismissing the petitions without a hearing … . Finally, it was not necessary for Family Court to dismiss the petitions because they were unsworn, given that verification of a visitation petition is not required by either CPLR 3020 or Family Ct Act article 6 … . Matter of Shawn MM. v Jasmine LL., 2020 NY Slip Op 01223, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER MISSED PLEADING AND DISCLOSURE DEADLINES, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OMISSIONS WERE WILLFUL; THEREFORE PRECLUDING FATHER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN THE CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father should not have been precluded from offering evidence in the modification of custody proceeding. Although father missed several court-imposed deadlines for responding papers and disclosure, the sanction was too severe:

… [A]lthough the father failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines for responsive pleadings and discovery, the record lacks any evidence of willfulness on the part of the father to warrant a drastic sanction of complete preclusion … . The father was represented by assigned counsel at the May 7, 2018 conference during which the initial discovery schedule was established. Shortly thereafter, the mother served a first demand for interrogatories and combined discovery demand. … In the meantime, the father was assigned new counsel who appeared for the July 16, 2018 conference, at which time the deadlines were extended. At the fact-finding hearing, the father’s counsel stated that delay in responding “is predominantly my fault and I will make that very explicitly clear on the record.” In light of the preliminary conference orders, counsel also made the meritless assertion that the mother’s discovery demands were ineffective for lacking court authorization. On the other hand, counsel did serve a response to the interrogatories — although that response was unverified. In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the father’s conduct was willful. Additionally, “modification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing with the parties given the opportunity to present in open court evidence as to the best interest[s] of the child” … . Here, the preclusion of all of the father’s testimony renders it difficult to determine the best interests of this child (see id.). Based on the foregoing, we remit the matter for a new hearing. Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC., 2020 NY Slip Op 01227, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE MOTHER DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED AND DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge, sua sponte, should not have dismissed father’s modification of custody petition for failure to state a cause of action because mother did not request that relief. The Third Department went on to consider mother’s motion for summary judgment and deny it:

“[A] motion for summary judgment may be utilized in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding, but such a motion should be granted only when there are no material facts disputed sufficiently to warrant a trial” … . “In a custody modification proceeding, the controlling ‘material fact’ is whether or not there is a change in circumstances so as to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by modifying the existing custody arrangement” … .

Here, the mother failed to meet her initial summary judgment burden. There can be no dispute that only five months had elapsed since entry of the March 2018 order and, as such, the “automatic” change in circumstances provision incorporated in that order had not been triggered. The father, however, sought modification based upon several other alleged changes in circumstance, including that the mother had been disparaging the father in front of the children in violation of the March 2018 order and that she is living in a homeless shelter. The mother, in her motion for summary judgment, makes no mention of these allegations or otherwise attempts to refute them in any way. Matter of Anthony F. v Christy G., 2020 NY Slip Op 01228, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, , ,

PETITION ALLEGED MOTHER FAILED TO GIVE ADHD MEDICATION TO THE CHILDREN; THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; BECAUSE FAMILY COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION TO REARGUE THE MOTION WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED RENDERING THE ORDER APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect proceeding should not have been dismissed without a hearing. The petition alleged mother was not providing ADHD medication to the children and the children were unable to focus in school as a result. The Third Department noted that, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, here Family Court addressed the merits of the motion to reargue and will be deemed to have granted the motion:

Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where “the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . Considering that Family Court scheduled and heard oral argument on the motion to reargue and, thereafter, issued a decision addressing the merits, we deem the court to have granted reargument, such that the December 2018 order adhering to the October 2018 order is appealable as of right … . …

“A parent’s unwillingness to follow a recommended course of psychiatric therapy and medication, resulting in the impairment of a child’s emotional health[,] may support a finding of neglect. However, what constitutes adequate medical care cannot be judged in a vacuum. The critical factor in this determination is whether the parent[ has] provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for [his or her] child in light of all the surrounding circumstances” … . Here, the petition and corresponding affidavit stated, among other things, that respondent failed to properly administer prescribed ADHD medication to the two oldest children and failed to bring them to scheduled doctor appointments, and that those children were struggling in school and were unable to focus because they were not receiving the proper dosage of medication. The petition states that these allegations are supported, in part, by information received from the children and their school. Petitioner further alleged its concern that respondent was either taking the children’s medication herself or selling it, along with the reasons for such concern. * * *

Despite the lack of allegations in the petition directly concerning the youngest child, the petition’s allegations could support a finding of derivative neglect of that child. Matter of Aydden OO. (Joni PP.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01232, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

LOCAL LAW CREATING A SENIOR LIVING DISTRICT (SLD) WAS INVALID BECAUSE APPROVAL BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS REQUIRED; BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT PROPER, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, in a matter of first impression, determined a local law rezoning agricultural land as a senior living district (SLD) where a senior living community could be constructed was invalid. In order to avoid the requirement that the local law be approved by a supermajority (as opposed to a simple majority) of the town board, the local law called for a 100-foot buffer between the SLD and the surrounding properties. However, in this case, the land in the 100-foot buffer was to be used for access roads and other purposes which exclusively served the SLD. In that situation, the Third Department held, the approval of the local law requires a supermajority and the local law was therefore invalid. The Third Department also noted that, because the complaint sought a declaratory judgment, dismissal of the complaint was not proper. A ruling on the declaratory judgment was required:

… [T]he SLD cannot be used for its intended purpose without improvements in the buffer zone that will serve only uses in the SLD and will provide no public benefit. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the purported buffer zone is sufficient to defeat the supermajority requirements of Town Law § 265. Notably, in holding that the distance of a buffer zone from neighboring properties should be measured from the boundary of the rezoned area rather than that of the buffer zone, the Court of Appeals found that this statutory interpretation “is fair, because it makes the power to require a supermajority vote dependent on the distance of one’s property from land that will actually be affected by the change” (Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 7 NY3d at 315 [emphasis added]). Here, land within the buffer zone will actually be affected by the rezoning in such a way that it would neither be fair nor consistent with the spirit and intent of Town Law § 265 to deprive neighboring landowners of the power to require a supermajority vote. We find that where, as here, a proposed buffer zone will contain improvements that benefit only the rezoned area and are necessary to the intended uses of the rezoned area, Town Law § 265 should be interpreted to require the 100-foot distance to opposing and adjacent properties to be measured from the boundary of the buffer zone rather than that of the rezoned area … . Dodson v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 2020 NY Slip Op 01234, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

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