You are here: / Civil Procedure

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE TIMELY INTERPOSED AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, held, in a brief memorandum, that the claims were timely asserted in a complaint which was filed but never served. The amended complaint included the same claims. Therefore the relation-back doctrine did not apply. The claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because the defendants waived that objection:

… [W]e … conclude that plaintiff’s first and second causes of action should be reinstated. Those claims, asserted in identical form in both the original and amended complaints, were timely interposed when plaintiff filed the original summons and complaint, i.e., “when the action [was] commenced” (see CPLR 203 [c]; 304 [a]). The relation-back doctrine is therefore inapplicable (see CPLR 203 [f]). Although plaintiff failed to serve the original complaint, on this record, the claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because defendants did not properly raise such an objection and thus waived it (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]).

From the dissent:

Defendants each moved to dismiss the complaint—referring to the amended complaint—under CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), claiming, amongst other things, that the first and second causes of action are untimely … . Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that these causes of action were timely interposed based on the filing of the unserved complaint. In its reply, the [defendant] requested dismissal of the unserved complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b for lack of service within the statutory time period.

… [P]laintiff responded by filing a motion under CPLR 306-b to extend the time to file the unserved complaint and deem it timely served nunc pro tunc. * * *

Supreme Court,  … denied plaintiff’s CPLR 306-b motion, and … granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed “the complaint” with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed … .. The dispositive point of contention … was whether the first two causes of action were timely … . Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08980, CtApp 12-17-19

 

,

CPLR 3122 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE COMPTROLLER TO ACQUIRE PATIENT AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH AUDITS OF PRIVATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the Comptroller of the State of New York, in auditing private health care providers, has the power to subpoena medical records without patient authorizations:

The Comptroller of the State of New York has a constitutional and statutory duty to audit payments of state money, including payments to private companies that provide health care to beneficiaries of a state insurance program. Here, the Comptroller carried out that obligation by means of investigatory subpoenas duces tecum directed to a medical provider, seeking patients’ records. We hold that CPLR 3122 (a) (2) does not require that the Comptroller’s subpoenas be accompanied by written patient authorizations, as the requirements set out in that paragraph apply only to subpoenas duces tecum served after commencement of an action. Matter of Plastic Surgery Group, P.C. v Comptroller of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 08979, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, , ,

TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO IDENTIFIED PLAINTIFF AS THE PERSON FLEEING THE SCENE OF A CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR A TERRY STOP; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT VACATED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the plaintiff’s judgment and ordering a new trial in this false arrest and malicious prosecution action, determined that the testimony of the defense witness who identified plaintiff as fleeing the scene of a crime should not have been precluded. The name and address of the witness had been provided to plaintiff four years before the trial and the fact that she had since moved and did not want to disclose her new address to any party was not something the defense could control. In addition, the jury was given no guidance on the criteria for an alleged wrongful stop of the plaintiff by police (reasonable suspicion, not probable cause), despite the questions concerning the stop on the special verdict sheet:

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony from the witness who identified plaintiff to the police as an individual she had seen fleeing the scene of a crime. Defendants satisfied their discovery obligation by providing the witness’s last known address and telephone number during discovery, more than four years before trial. Thus, there could have been no surprise or prejudice warranting the preclusion … . While the witness subsequently moved, she declined to disclose her new address to any parties to the suit, a factor defendants could not control … . As defendants did not know her new address, they had no obligation under CPLR 3101(h). Nor should defendants have been sanctioned for the fact that the wtness did not wish to discuss the case with plaintiff’s counsel when counsel called her. Notably, plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to contact the witness until two months before trial and did not attempt to obtain a nonparty deposition of the witness during discovery. Defendant offered to have the witness further confirm these facts, under oath and outside the presence of the jury. Under these circumstances, the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a hearing at which defendants’ trial attorney would be subject to questioning by plaintiff’s trial attorney, and precluding the witness’s testimony when defense counsel declined to participate in such a hearing. Given that the witness would have offered highly relevant and non-cumulative trial testimony, the error was not harmless … .

It was error to include on the special verdict sheet a questions as to a wrongful stop (Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 [1968]), because there was no charge given instructing the jury on the legal standard that must be applied in resolving those claims. The jury was never told that a stop is improper if the detaining officer does not have “reasonable suspicion” that the detainee committed a crime, which is less demanding than the “probable cause” standard applicable to the malicious prosecution claims … . That the jury sent a note requesting clarification on the question indicated its awareness of the lack of guidance …. .  Onilude v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08925, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE BANK COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304; THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN THE BANK’S FAVOR AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE BANK MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of the law of the case precluded the court from sua sponte, considering whether the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 were met by the bank in this foreclosure action. The issue was determined in the bank’s favor in the initial summary judgment proceeding and should not have been considered again when the bank moved to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure:

… [T]he defendants raised the issue of noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 in their answer, the plaintiff presented evidence of its compliance with the statute on its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, and, in granting that motion, the Supreme Court decided the issue in the plaintiff’s favor. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case … , the court was precluded from reconsidering the issue on the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . Moreover, since the defendants did not oppose the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and, therefore, did not raise the issue of the plaintiff’s noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the motion, the court should not have raised the issue sua sponte … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Morales, 2019 NY Slip Op 08891, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE MERITS OF THIS ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action should have been denied. Supreme Court had issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the moving party (the county). This is a class action contending that the imposition of a driver responsibility fee on red-light camera violations is illegal:

The plaintiff commenced this putative class action against Nassau County and the Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (hereinafter together the County) seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the imposition of a driver responsibility fee on a red-light camera violation is “inconsistent with New York’s general law, or is otherwise ultra vires, preempted, unconstitutional, or void as a matter of law.” Prior to interposing an answer, the County moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court, treating that branch of the County’s motion as one for a declaration in the County’s favor with respect to the first cause of action, granted that branch of the motion to the extent of declaring that the imposition of a driver responsibility fee on a red-light camera violation was a proper exercise of the County’s power to charge and collect administrative fees and, based on that declaration, directed dismissal of the remainder of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse. …

“… [I]f the record before the motion court is insufficient to resolve all factual issues such as the rights of the parties cannot be determined as a matter of law, a declaration upon a motion to dismiss is not permissible” … . Guthart v Nassau County, 2019 NY Slip Op 08825, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, , ,

MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A DOCTOR PROPERLY SEVERED FROM A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION AGAINST THE DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action against a doctor (Wishner) for medical malpractice was properly severed from an action against the doctor’s employer (HMG) for negligent training, supervision, hiring and retention. Evidence the doctor had negligently treated another patient would not be admissible in the malpractice action but would be admissible in the action against the employer:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of Wishner’s motion which was to sever the causes of action asserted against HMG alleging negligent training, supervision, hiring, and retention from the causes of action premised on medical malpractice. In general, “it is improper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that he or she did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion” … . Thus, generally, evidence of prior unrelated bad acts of negligent treatment of other patients, even if relevant, constitutes impermissible propensity evidence that lacks probative value and “has the potential to induce the jury to decide the case based on evidence of [a] defendant’s character” … . Mullen v Wishner, 2019 NY Slip Op 08850, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce should not have been modified without holding a hearing:

“A party seeking a change in [parental access] or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” … . As a general matter, custody and parental access determinations should only be rendered after a full hearing … .However, this general right is not absolute … , and a hearing “is not necessary where the undisputed facts before the court are sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a modification of custody … .

The plaintiff made the necessary showing entitling him to a hearing regarding that branch of his motion which was to modify the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce with respect to the child … . The record shows that there were disputed factual issues regarding the child’s best interests such that a hearing on modification of parental access was required … . Further, “[a] decision regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence” … . Here, in making its determination, the Supreme Court relied solely on information provided at court conferences, and the hearsay statements and conclusions of the family specialist, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . Katsoris v Katsoris, 2019 NY Slip Op 08833, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT, WHO LIVED IN INDIA, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the time for serving defendant (Kothary), who lived in India, in this foreclosure action was properly extended in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b. But Supreme Court should not have directed an alternative method of service (service upon the defendant’s attorney) pursuant to CPLR 308 (5):

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting, in the interest of justice, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon Kothary. The plaintiff established, among other things, that the action was timely commenced, and that service was timely attempted and was perceived by the plaintiff to have been within the 120-day period but was subsequently found to have been defective … . Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action, and that there was no identifiable prejudice to Kothary as a consequence of the delay in service … . …

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 308(5) to direct an alternative method for service of process by permitting service upon Kothary’s attorney. “CPLR 308(5) vests a court with discretion to direct an alternative method for service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) are impracticable” … . “[A] plaintiff seeking to effect expedient service must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made” … . Here, at the hearing, Kothary provided the address where he resides in New Delhi … , and the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that effectuating service in India by any of the authorized methods would have been unduly burdensome … . “That [Kothary] resided in a foreign country did not, by itself, relieve the plaintiff of [its] obligation to make a reasonable effort to effectuate service in a customary manner before seeking relief pursuant to CPLR 308(5)” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Kothary, 2019 NY Slip Op 08832, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the medical malpractice causes of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff’s decedent had seen the defendant psychiatrist for the first time on November 20, 2014 and the next appointment was set up for December 11, 2014. Defendant alleged he called decedent on November 21, 2014 to tell her she should be treated by someone else, but the December 11, 2014 appointment was not cancelled. Decedent committed suicide on November 24, 2014. The action was commenced on May 24, 2017:

Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the period of limitations does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment if three conditions are met: (1) the patient “continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period”; (2) the course of treatment was “for the same conditions or complaints underlying the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim”; and (3) the treatment is “continuous” … . To satisfy the requirement that treatment is continuous, further treatment must be explicitly anticipated by both the physician and the patient, as demonstrated by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . * * *

The question here is whether the statute of limitations began to run on November 20, 2014, when the decedent met with the defendant for a medical appointment, or November 24, 2014, when she died. The Supreme Court concluded that the limited interactions between the defendant and the decedent failed to give rise to a continuing trust and confidence between them upon which the court could conclude that the decedent anticipated further treatment. However, since a further appointment was scheduled and was not cancelled—further treatment of some sort was anticipated, or there is at least a triable issue of fact on that issue … . Hillary v Gerstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 08658, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, , ,

THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a California judgment should have been given full faith and credit and the underlying merits should not have been considered:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the judgment and the order, which obligated the defendants to pay the plaintiff certain amounts, and evidence that the defendants had not paid the amounts awarded therein (see CPLR 3213 …). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.

The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art IV, § 1) requires that the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state be given full faith and credit in every other state. The purpose of the clause is to avoid conflicts between states in adjudicating the same matters … . “The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence . . . which requires recognition of the foreign judgment as proof of the prior-out-of-State litigation and gives it res judicata effect, thus avoiding relitigation of issues in one State which have already been decided in another” … . “Absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state” … , and it is precluded from inquiring into the merits of the judgment … .

Here, the defendants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the California court, but instead, sought to relitigate the merits underlying that court’s determination. The Supreme Court should not have considered the defendants’ attack on the merits of the California determination. Balboa Capital Corp. v Plaza Auto Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08645, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

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