You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL WERE NOT MET HERE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not precluded by judicial estoppel from seeking attorney’s fees deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding:

Supreme Court incorrectly dismissed the complaint on the ground that judicial estoppel bars plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees that were deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel applies where it is shown that a debtor omitted or concealed the existence of an asset and later brought suit to collect on that asset … . Here, the court made no such findings, and in fact assumed that plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy trustee. Nor does the record establish that plaintiff obtained a benefit in the bankruptcy proceeding by taking one position in that proceeding and then assuming a contrary position in this action “simply because [his] interest changed” … . We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the record establishes that plaintiff unequivocally adopted a conflicting legal position to obtain a bankruptcy discharge. Bohn v Tekulsky, 2025 NY Slip Op 02848, First Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: In the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a debtor from concealing the existence of an asset and subsequently bringing suit to collect on that asset. Although there was a dissent, the majority concluded plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy court and therefore judicial estoppel did not apply.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO REMEDY DEFECTS IN THE COMPLAINT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging that defendants improperly influenced the decedent to name them as beneficiaries of two bank accounts should not have been dismissed. The allegations in the complaint were supplemented by plaintiff’s affidavit. The Second Department noted that the affidavit should have been considered in assessing the sufficiency of the complaint:

The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that it failed to state a cause of action. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which she made statements to supplement the causes of action alleged in the complaint. … Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. …

“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “‘Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss'” … . Where a cause of action is based upon, inter alia, fraud, breach of trust, or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail (see CPLR 3016[b]).

Here, the Supreme Court should have considered the plaintiff’s affidavit to remedy any defects in the complaint when it assessed the defendants’ motion … . Rauch v Rauch, 2025 NY Slip Op 02802, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Here the court held that an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff to remedy defects in the complaint in response to a motion to dismiss should have been considered by the motion court. The complaint as supplemented by the affidavit was deemed to state a cause of action for undue influence.

 

, , , , ,

PETITIONER JUDGMENT-CREDITOR WAS ENTITLED TO THE TURNOVER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTORS, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF RESPONDENTS’ SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to real property which was fraudulently transferred by respondents to a trust, as well as to the contents of respondents’ safety deposit box, to satisfy a judgment against respondents in the approximate amount of $338,000:

… [P]etitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, seeking … the turnover of a safety deposit box maintained by the respondents Zakhar Brener and Ninel Krepkina and of certain residential real property owned by the respondent B and K Trust. * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 273 by submitting evidence that Brener was insolvent at the time of the conveyance of the property, which was made without fair consideration … .  * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276. “Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276, every conveyance made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors is fraudulent. The requisite intent required by this section need not be proven by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the allegedly fraudulent transfer” … . “In determining whether a conveyance was fraudulent, the courts consider the existence of certain common ‘badges of fraud,’ which include ‘a close relationship between the parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction; a questionable transfer not in the usual course of business; inadequacy of the consideration; the transferor’s knowledge of the creditor’s claim and the inability to pay it; and retention of control of the property by the transferor after the conveyance'” … . “A prime example of this type of fraud is where a debtor transfers his property to another while retaining the use thereof so as to continue . . . free from the claims of creditors” … . Here, the petitioner submitted, among other things, the Brener respondents’ answer, wherein they admitted that Brener continued to occupy and use the property with Krepkina. …

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to direct Chase Bank to turn over of the contents of the safe deposit box maintained by Brener and Krepkina by submitting a letter establishing that Brener and Krepkina jointly held a safe deposit box at one of Chase Bank’s branches in Brooklyn … . Matter of Schiffman v Affordable Shoes, Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op 02786, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of a CPLR Article 52 turnover proceeding by a judgment creditor against judgment debtors based in part upon respondents’ fraudulent transfer of real property to avoid creditors (Debtor and Creditor Law sections 273 and 276).

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED UNDER THE PSEUDONYM “JANE DOE” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request to proceed using the pseudonym “Jane Doe” should have been granted. Plaintiff is apparently suing her former employer, a charter school, contesting her termination, which apparently was based upon a video depicting plaintiff masturbating:

As to the merits, Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request to proceed in this litigation under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” … . This action concerns information of a highly sensitive, intimate, and personal nature — namely, a video depicting plaintiff masturbating. Plaintiff’s affidavit establishes the serious psychological harm that disclosure of her role in this video caused her and would continue to cause her, as well as the potential impact on her career in education … . That plaintiff was able to obtain a new job in education after her termination by defendants is of no moment, as she may still need to apply for other jobs in future and it is not clear whether her current employer is aware of the circumstances of her termination.

Defendants do not identify any source of prejudice to them from allowing plaintiff to proceed by pseudonym, as they know who she is and therefore are not impeded in mounting a defense … . The public interest in disclosure of plaintiff’s identity is also minimal. Even if the charter school defendants were deemed public entities for these purposes (see Education Law § 2854[3][a], [c] …), that fact would not be dispositive, especially because plaintiff is not requesting that court records be sealed or public access denied … . Furthermore, the termination decision at issue here is not claimed to be the result of any government policy.

Plaintiff’s privacy interest outweighs the reputational interest of the individual defendants’ anonymity … . Jane Doe v KIPP N.Y., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02718, First Dept 5-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a brief discussion of the factors which control whether a plaintiff can sue under a pseudonym, “Jane Doe” in this case.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, FATHER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER VISITATION WITH THE CHILD, WHICH NEED NOT INCLUDE CONTACT VISITATION, IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; IT IS THE MOTHER’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE VISITATION WOULD BE HARMFUL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the incarcerated father was entitled to a hearing on whether visitation would be in the best interests of the child. Father was convicted of assaulting mother when mother was seven months pregnant. Family Court had granted mother’s summary judgment motion precluding father’s contact until the child turns 18. The Third Department found that summary judgment in the absence of a hearing was inappropriate:

… [W]e agree with the father’s contention that a hearing was required regarding the issue of visitation. Plainly stated, we do not find that, given the specific circumstances of this case, denying the father any contact with the child until the child’s 18th birthday was appropriate on a summary judgment motion … . This is especially so given that “visitation . . . need not always include contact visitation at the prison” … . As such, the father is entitled to a hearing to determine what, if any, visitation is in the best interests of the child. By way of reminder, at this hearing, it is not the father’s burden to demonstrate that visitation is in the child’s best interests, but rather it is the mother, as the party opposing visitation, who has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that visitation with [the father] would, under all of the circumstances, be harmful to the child[‘s] welfare or contrary to [her] best interests” … . This includes a consideration of whether updates, photographs and/or letters may be appropriate and in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Jaime T. v Ryan U., 2025 NY Slip Op 02638, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: Once again it is Family Court’s failure to hold a hearing which results in reversal. Here the incarcerated father is entitled to a hearing on whether visitation, which need not include contact visitation, would be in the best interests of the child. At the hearing, it is mother’s burden to demonstration visitation would be harmful to the child.

 

, ,

“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept the late answer should not have been granted:

A defendant seeking to compel the plaintiff to accept a late answer “must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Generally, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the court; however, reversal is warranted where the court improvidently exercises that discretion” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its defaults based upon law office failure. “[T]he movant must provide a detailed and credible explanation for the purported law office failure” … . “[A] conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel asserted in a conclusory and undetailed manner that the initial deadline to serve an answer and the extension consented to by the plaintiff’s former counsel were missed due to an office backlog and miscalendaring, and that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment was “misplaced” in the office … . Raphael v City of Peekskill, 2025 NY Slip Op 02616, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here allegations of “law office failure” did not warrant compelling the plaintiff to accept a late answer.

 

, ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have held a hearing before ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding. The proceeding was against respondent, the paramour of petitioner’s former husband. Whether Family Court has jurisdiction depends on whether the respondent is or has been in an “intimate relationship” with petitioner’s child:

“Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of ‘intimate relationship’ a ‘casual acquaintance’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … , “the [L]egislature left it to the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what qualifies as an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)” … . The factors that a court may consider while making such a determination are “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . “[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … .

Here, in light of the parties’ conflicting allegations as to whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the child and the respondent within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court, prior to determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, should have conducted a hearing on that issue … . Matter of De Phillips v Perez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Family Court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense petition against a person who is not a family member but has an “intimate relationship” with the child. Here Family Court should not have found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction without first holding a hearing to determine whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the respondent and petitioner’s child.​

 

, , ,

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence-based lawsuit against defendant residential nursing facility stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19 was precluded by the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082, repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1) (EDTPA). The repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive:

The EDTPA, as effective August 3, 2020, to April 5, 2021, provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of providing health care services,” if: (a) the health care facility “is providing health care services in accordance with applicable law, or where appropriate pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule”; (b) the act or omission occurs in the course of providing health care services and the treatment of the individual is impacted by the health care facility’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and (c) the health care facility “is providing health care services in good faith” (Public Health Law former § 3082[1][a]-[c]). …

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of immunity … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive … . Lara v S&J Operational, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02582, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Although the EDTPA has been repealed. the repeal is not applied retroactively. The COVID-19-related immunity conferred by the act precluded the lawsuit here.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL 15 TO 20 FEET SUFFERING A FRACTURED RIB AND A FRACTURED FEMUR WHICH REQUIRED AN OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURGERY; THE VERDICT AWARDING $1.5 MILLION FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING, $2.5 MILLION FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $800,000 FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict as excessive should not have been granted:

The plaintiff was injured when, while standing on a beam performing demolition work, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning duct fell and struck him, causing him to fall approximately 15 to 20 feet to the floor. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a fractured rib and a fractured femur that required open reduction internal fixation surgery. A metal rod and screws were inserted into the plaintiff’s left leg. The plaintiff later underwent a surgical procedure to remove one of the screws. Furthermore, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff developed problems with both of his knees and his spine, requiring arthroscopic surgery on each knee and a laminotomy. The plaintiff walks with a limp, has limited motion of the hip and knees, and has developed arthritis that will worsen over time. Since the accident, the plaintiff has experienced constant pain despite having been administered numerous injections, including trigger-point injections and transforaminal injections, and having been prescribed several medications, including opioids. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff will continue to experience pain and will require future medical treatment, including pain management and, likely, a spinal fusion.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of 35 years, and $800,000 for future medical expenses over a period of 35 years. Thereafter, the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant separately moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as excessive, the jury verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. In an order dated June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the separate motions to the extent of directing a new trial on those categories of damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the damages awards to the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. …

* * * … [C]onsidering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the damages awards for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, as awarded by the jury, were appropriate and did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation … . Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02564, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A jury’s damages award for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses should not be set aside unless the award is demonstrated to “deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation,” not the case here.

 

,

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN CPLR 3216 PRECLUDED DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3216 precluded the dismissal of the complaint:

… [A]bsent strict compliance with the conditions precedent to dismissal set forth in CPLR 3216 (b) (3), “[n]o dismissal shall be directed” … . Indeed, “[t]he conditions precedent to bringing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under CPLR 3216 must be complied with strictly” … .

Among those conditions precedent are the service of a ninety-day demand to resume prosecution, by registered or certified mail, which specifically states that the failure to file the note of issue within ninety days will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution … . Where the ninety-day demand is served by the court, the demand shall also “set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … .

Here, the court did not serve a ninety-day demand upon plaintiff, and for that reason alone, the court erred in directing dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court’s second supplemental scheduling order could serve as the substitute for a ninety-day demand, that scheduling order did not indicate that dismissal would result if plaintiff failed to file the note of issue, nor did it set forth the specific conduct constituting plaintiff’s neglect … . “While an order may have the same effect as a valid 90-day demand, that order must advise as to the consequences for failing to comply, i.e., dismissal of the complaint” … , and here, the order wholly failed to do so. Woloszuk v Logan-Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 02444, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The conditions precedent for dismissal of a complaint in CPRL 3216 must be strictly complied with by the judge or reversal is mandatory.

 

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