You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated defendant had a bank account in a New York bank to which the funds defendant borrowed from plaintiff were wired. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached a contract requiring the repayment of the loan:

CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state.” “The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . The sufficient activities requirement is satisfied “so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … .

“To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus . . . or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted” … . “This inquiry is relatively permissive, and does not require causation, but merely a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim” … . “CPLR 302(a)(1) is a single act statute and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Skutnik v Messina, 2019 NY Slip Op 08725, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCEDURE USED WHEN PLAINTIFF DONATED BLOOD SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DOCTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3012-a WAS DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH BELIEF THE ACTION SOUNDED IN COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the action stemming from alleged negligence in drawing blood donated by plaintiff sounded in medical malpractice, not common law negligence; (2) therefore a certificate of merit was required (CPLR 3012-a); and (3) the failure to provide a certificate of merit does not warrant dismissal of the action, rather the plaintiff should be allowed 60 days to provide the certificate:

… [M]any of the plaintiff’s allegations bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment to a particular patient …. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendant failed to properly screen the plaintiff for health problems, obtain her medical history, monitor her physical condition, measure her hemoglobin levels, and keep her at the donation site for a specific period of time to observe any signs of an adverse reaction. The issues of whether the plaintiff needed additional screening, monitoring, or supervision, and whether she was at risk of falling due to a medical condition, involve the exercise of medical judgments beyond the common knowledge of ordinary persons. Only a medical professional would know what factors make a person ineligible to donate blood, how much blood should be drawn, what constitutes the signs and symptoms of an adverse reaction, and how to immediately treat an adverse reaction. Thus, the interaction between the plaintiff and the defendant implicates issues of medical judgment that sound in medical malpractice. * * *

… [A]lthough the complaint was not accompanied by a certificate of merit as required by CPLR 3012-a, dismissal of the complaint is not warranted as the plaintiff’s attorney should be provided with an opportunity to comply with the statute now that it is determined that the statute applies to this particular action … . There is no reason to believe from this record that the plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to file a certificate of merit was motivated by anything other than a good faith assessment that CPLR 3012-a did not apply to the action. The proper remedy at this stage, since the defendant had also sought in its underlying motion “such other and further relief as this court may deem just, proper and reasonable” … , is for this Court to extend the plaintiff’s time to serve a certificate of merit upon the defendant until 60 days after service of this opinion and order.  Only if the plaintiff is recalcitrant in complying with both the statute and this Court’s order may the Supreme Court, in its discretion, then dismiss the complaint … . Rabinovich v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 08724, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was not properly served with an Article 78 petition and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) action. The process server alleged the petition was delivered to an attorney at the DEP who said she was authorized to receive service. The Second Department found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel, based upon the DEP attorney’s assertion she was authorized to receive service, did not apply:

It is undisputed that the petitioner’s process server did not deliver the notice of petition and petition to the Corporation Counsel, or any other “person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the clerk of New York county” (CPLR 311[a][2]). Because the petitioner did not effectuate service in strict compliance with CPLR 311(a)(2), it is irrelevant that the petitioner’s process server allegedly relied upon the representations of an attorney employed by the DEP … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the DEP should not be equitably estopped from asserting the petitioner’s failure to properly serve the DEP with the notice of petition. The doctrine of equitable estoppel should be invoked against governmental entities sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances … . Estoppel against a governmental entity will lie when the governmental entity acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes its position to its detriment or prejudice … . The fact that the DEP’s attorney may have identified herself as an agent who was “authorized by appointment to receive service at that address” is far removed from any clear expression of her status as a person designated to receive process on behalf of the City in a writing filed in the New York County Clerk’s office … . There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the petitioner justifiably relied on any misleading conduct by the DEP which would support a finding of equitable estoppel … . Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 08670, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE US VIRGIN ISLANDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT BY A STATE COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a subpoena issued by the Attorney General of the United State Virgin Islands (USVI) should have been quashed for failure to comply with CPLR 3119:

The subpoena … failed to meet the procedural requirements for out-of-state subpoenas because it was not issued “under authority of a court of record” (see generally CPLR 3119[a][1], [4] … ). Although the subpoena need not have been issued in connection with a pending litigation, there must have been some court involvement, such as the issuance of a commission by a state court clerk or signature of the subpoena by a state court judge … . We reject respondents’ argument that administrative subpoenas are outside the scope of CPLR 3119 and not subject to any restrictions on issuance. Matter of American Express Co. v United States Virgin Is. Dept. of Justice, 2019 NY Slip Op 08618, First Dept 12-3-19

 

, ,

DEFICIENCIES IN THE BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT, STANDING AND THE AMOUNT OWED COULD NOT BE CURED BY SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL PROOF IN THE REPLY PAPERS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not submit sufficient proof of defendants’ default, standing or the amount owed, and the deficiencies could not be cured by a second affidavit submitted in reply:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its assistant vice president, Keith Weinkauf. As to the defendants’ alleged default, Weinkauf stated that the defendants “fail[ed] to make the full payment due on the [m]aturity [d]ate” of the note. On the issue of standing, Weinkauf averred that “[e]ffective March 31, 2016, Montauk Credit Union merged into Bethpage Federal Credit Union.” Further, with respect to the amount owed by the defendants, Weinkauf stated that the current unpaid principal balance due on the note was $58,165.61, plus interest, late charges, and fees. However, apart from producing a copy of the note itself, Weinkauf submitted no evidence in admissible form with his affidavit to establish the existence of a default, the plaintiff’s standing, or the calculation of the unpaid amount owed by the defendants … . Although the plaintiff later submitted, with its reply papers, a second affidavit from Weinkauf, along with supporting documentary evidence, to establish its standing, the plaintiff could not, under the circumstances presented, rely on the second affidavit to correct deficiencies inherent in the original one … . Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v Luzzi, 2019 NY Slip Op 08550, Second Dept, 11-27-19

 

, , , ,

THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT PASS TO THE FOREIGN (DELAWARE) CORPORATION AFTER A MERGER AND ACQUISITION OF NEW YORK BUSINESS ENTITIES; THEREFORE THE NEW YORK PARTIES, IN THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THEM IN THE TRANSACTION, CAN SEEK ACCESS TO THE ATTORNEYS’ PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New York law applied to a party’s assertion of  the attorney-client privilege for documents associated with a corporate acquisition and merger involving New York and Delaware business entities. The opinion is fact-based and far too complex and comprehensive to summarize here. The Second Department, disagreeing with Supreme Court, held that the choice of law was governed by public policy, and the proper theory for access to the privileged documents is New York’s law of replevin. In a nutshell, the Second Department held that the attorney-client privilege did not pass to the foreign corporation after the merger and acquisition, but rather remained with the the New York parties (Sina and Askari) and allowed the New York parties to pursue claims against the attorneys (McDermott)  who represented them in the transaction:

In a situation where documents are sought, New York will apply the law of the forum where the evidence will be introduced at trial or the location of the proceeding seeking discovery of those documents … . Here, the privileged communications being sought by the plaintiffs in this New York replevin action were made in New York between New York-based attorneys at McDermott and Sina, a New York corporation, involving its then-majority shareholder and president, Askari, a New York resident. The sole nexus that Delaware has to this action is that Specialty is a limited liability company formed under the laws of that state. Consequently, New York law applies in this action sounding in replevin seeking the disclosure of McDermott’s files … . …

It would indeed be incongruous to enforce a law which effectively forecloses New York corporations merging with foreign corporations from having the ability to pursue their claims against their counsel or the newly formed, post-merger entities based on the post-merger entities’ control of the documents needed by the former entities to prosecute potential claims. Here, Delaware law gives the new corporation, a putative defendant, sole access to and control of the merger-related documents by the exercise of the attorney-client privilege. This is contrary to New York public policy … . * * *

Here, Business Corporation Law § 1006 specifically provides that a dissolved corporation, like Sina, may commence an action in any court under its corporate name. Sina’s dissolution does not affect Sina’s right or capacity to maintain this replevin action since the claim arose from McDermott’s representation of Sina which began before Sina’s dissolution. … Thus, the plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for replevin since the plaintiffs submitted evidence, through Askari’s affidavit, that McDermott represented Sina and Askari during the “transactions.” As a result, the plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, their superior possessory right to McDermott’s files. Askari v McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 08547, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, , ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have considered a new theory of medical malpractice raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

… [T]he complaint and bill of particulars were only sufficient to put defendant on notice of an allegation that, in January 2013, he failed to properly compare the 2013 EC [echocardiagram] with the 2011 EC contained in decedent’s medical record, and determine that a dilation in decedent’s aorta had increased. Plaintiffs’ papers were insufficient to put defendant on notice of plaintiffs’ new theory of liability – raised for the first time in her expert’s opinion – that he deviated from the standard of care in August 2011, when interpreting the 2011 EC … . Here, where negligence is specifically alleged to have occurred only between December 2012 and January 2013, we conclude that the vague, ambiguous, nonspecific and open-ended assertion “prior or subsequent thereto” contained in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars failed to put defendant on notice of a claim that he acted negligently in August 2011. Carroll v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08524, First Dept 11-26-19

 

, , ,

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined an automatic bankruptcy stay tolls the statute of limitations where a party has a pending action at the time the stay was imposed:

New York law tolls the statute of limitations where “the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition” (CPLR 204 [a]). Federal bankruptcy law automatically stays the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). We must determine whether the bankruptcy stay qualifies as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204 (a), and, if so, whether a party may later avail itself of the toll where, at the time the stay was imposed, that party had a pending action asserting the same claim. … [W]e answer yes to both questions … . * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” The result here depends on our reading of the term “commencement.”

Plaintiff argues that it is impossible for defendant to have been prohibited from “commencing” an action because a foreclosure action had been commenced prior to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Application of plaintiff’s rule would be as follows: Because defendant filed the first foreclosure claim and defendant responded by filing a bankruptcy petition, invoking the automatic stay, commencement of that first action was not “stayed” under the statute and the toll is inapplicable. And when defendant filed a second foreclosure action, and plaintiff again responded by again filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked the automatic stay, “commencement” of that second action was not stayed, once again making the toll inapplicable … . * * *

Neither this Court nor the Legislature has restricted the term “commencement” to the first time a party files a complaint asserting a cause of action; instead the term may also include the commencement of subsequent actions asserting the same claim … . Lubonty v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.., 2019 NY Slip Op 08520, CtApp 11-25-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S RESIDENCE IS CALIFORNIA AND THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION THEREFORE ACCRUED IN CALIFORNIA; UNDER NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, CPLR 202, THE ACTIONS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that California, the residence of the plaintiff, here a residential-mortgage-backed-securities trustee, was where the breach of contract action accrued, not New York. Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 202, New York’s borrowing statute, the action must be timely under both California and New York law. The action was not timely under California law which has a four-year statute for breach of contract:

Defendants argued that as a resident of California, plaintiff suffered economic injury in California, and therefore plaintiff’s causes of action accrued in California for the purposes of CPLR 202. Plaintiff conceded that it was a resident of California. It argued, however, that instead of applying the general rule that an economic injury is suffered where the plaintiff resides to determine where the cause of action accrued, the court should apply a multi-factor analysis. Plaintiff asserted that because it was suing in a representative capacity on behalf of the trusts, it did not suffer real economic loss, and its residence was irrelevant, or at least not the primary consideration, for determining the place of accrual. * * *

We reaffirm that “a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury” … . Although courts may, in appropriate cases, conclude that an economic loss was sustained in a place other than where the plaintiff resides, we decline to apply the multi-factor analysis that plaintiff proposes. * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff’s residence applies to determine the place of injury in this case. As trustee, plaintiff is authorized to enforce, on behalf of the certificateholders, the representations and warranties in the relevant agreements. Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to look to plaintiff’s residence as the place where the economic injury was sustained and, consequently, where plaintiff’s causes of action accrued for purposes of CPLR 202. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barclays Bank PLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08519, Ct App 11-25-19

 

, , , ,

FOUR CLASSES PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUITS BASED UPON THE CONTAMINATION OF AIR, WATER, REAL PROPERTY AND PEOPLE WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that Supreme Court properly certified four classes bring class action suits against a manufacturer alleging the contamination of water, air, real property and people with toxic chemicals, PFOA and PFOS:

Plaintiffs, residents of the Town, commenced this action as a proposed class action, alleging that defendant’s use and improper disposal of PFOA and PFOS caused personal injury and property damage. In their complaint, plaintiffs proposed four classes: (1) a public water property damage class; (2) a private well water property damage class; (3) a private well nuisance class; and (4) a PFOA invasion injury class. Generally, the putative class members were individuals who owned or leased property in the Town or who ingested contaminated municipal or well water or inhaled PFOA or PFOS particulates in the Town and had demonstrable evidence of elevated levels of the chemical in their blood system. * * *

We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that, in addition to those questions common to the property classes, the answers to certain additional common questions will be applicable to all members of the invasion injury class, for example: (1) whether medical monitoring is an available remedy; (2) the extent of the health hazard presented by exposure to PFOA; and (3) whether the members of the class are at significant increased risk for disease based on the excess accumulation of PFOA in their bodies. Although defendant contends that there are myriad factual questions that are not common to the class, we do not agree that those predominate. Importantly, this is not a case where there is an issue of fact regarding exposure — rather, each class member must establish exposure and accumulation through blood work … . Burdick v Tonoga, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08461, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

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