You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANTS FROM CALLING PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIANS AS WITNESSES IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE NOTICE AND THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S REDACTIONS OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SUGGEST THEIR OWN REDACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the trial court properly precluded the defendants to call plaintiff’s (Walid’s) treating physicians as witnesses and properly redacted plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff, a teenager with autism, brought this action against police officers for assault, battery and use of excessive force. Defendants did not give timely notice of their wish to call the treating doctors and did not supply their own suggested redactions:

We find that, under the circumstances, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding defendants from introducing testimony from Walid’s treating doctors at Ferncliff Manor. Defendants failed to disclose any of these witnesses until four days before trial, after having previously affirmatively represented to the court that they did not intend to call any witnesses. The court and plaintiffs relied on this representation in estimating the length of trial and selecting a jury. In view of the trial court’s broad authority to control its courtroom, it was not unreasonable for the court to decline to add these witnesses and prolong the trial when a jury had already been chosen (twice) based on certain representations about its length … .

The trial court also did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing only a limited subset of Walid’s records from Ferncliff Manor to be admitted into evidence. It is clear that these records required at least some redaction, including to eliminate double hearsay … and propensity evidence … . Because defendants refused to propose any redactions, after having been given ample opportunities to do so, the trial court was justified in adopting plaintiffs’ proposed redactions instead. Even if defendants are correct that the complete records contain additional relevant evidence that should not have been excluded, having failed to propose any redactions of their own, defendants cannot now complain that the records should have been redacted less heavily. Walid M. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07739, First Dept 10-29-19

 

, ,

INSURER’S ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT IS PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an insurer’s accident investigation report is privileged and not discoverable:

Documents in an insurer’s claim file, including an accident investigation report, that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure (see CPLR 3101[d][2] … ). Although documents in a first-party insurance action prepared in an insurer’s ordinary course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject coverage are discoverable (see CPLR 3101[g] … ), there is no indication that such documents are being protected here. In the absence of any demonstration of hardship by plaintiff, the insurer’s accident investigation report remains privileged … . Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07751, First Dept 10-29-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the negative declaration issued by the town under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because the sewer construction approved by the town was 15 miles from plaintiff’s property. The Third Department further found that plaintiff’s actions should have been brought as an Article 78 and therefore was time-barred, and his First Amendment arguments, alleging the town should have responded to his “Petition for the Redress of Grievances Regarding the Proposed [sewer district].” were meritless:

Plaintiff does not have standing to raise the SEQRA claims. “In land use matters especially, [the Court of Appeals] ha[s] long imposed the limitation that the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that [he or she] would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large [and] [t]his requirement applies whether the challenge to governmental action is based on a SEQRA violation, or other grounds” … .Plaintiff does not reside in the Town. Although his homestead apparently straddles the Town line such that 1.2 acres of his land is situated in the Town, his property is located outside of — and approximately 15 miles away from — the sewer district. Moreover, plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer, by itself, does not grant him standing to challenge the establishment of the sewer district … . …

Plaintiff’s SEQRA challenge is also time-barred. Regardless of how a plaintiff may label or style his or her claim, courts must look to the core of the underlying claim and the relief sought and, if the claim could have been properly addressed in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, a four-month statute of limitations will apply … . * * *

… [T]he First Amendment does not “guarantee[] a citizen’s right to receive a government response to or official consideration of a petition for redress of grievances” … . Schulz v Town Bd. of the Town of Queensbury, 2019 NY Slip Op 07667, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE SUBCONTRACT EXPIRED BEFORE SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT; THE TERMS OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND CONFLICTED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE STATE FINANCE LAW CONTROLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-subcontractor’s breach of contract action against the general contractor and the insurance company (Liberty Mutual) which issued the labor and material payment bond for the construction work should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its action against the general contractor. The Third Department held that the six-month statute of limitations in the subcontract and the one-year statute of limitations in the bond did not render the actions time-barred:

“A ‘limitation period’ that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim” … . The conflict in the subcontractor agreement between the limitation period and the payment provisions had the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s breach of contract claim; thus, the six-month limitation period is unreasonable and unenforceable, and Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred … . * * *

State Finance Law § 137 (4) (b) sets forth a later accrual date than the payment bond, providing that “no action on a payment bond furnished pursuant to [State Finance Law § 137] shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date on which the public improvement has been completed and accepted by the public owner” (emphasis added). The provisions of State Finance Law § 137 govern bonds furnished pursuant to that statute, and, although parties may agree to expand the statute’s protections, they may not limit them … . As the accrual date set forth in the first part of the contractual limitation provision conflicts with State Finance Law § 137 (4) (b), the second part of the provision must be given effect, and the bond agreement must be deemed to be amended to provide for the accrual date set forth in the statute … . The record does not reveal the date on which the project was accepted … for this purpose. Accordingly, there are issues of fact as to when plaintiff’s cause of action against Liberty Mutual accrued and whether it is time-barred, and summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Liberty should not have been granted … . Digesare Mech., Inc. v U.W. Marx, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07668, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

, ,

TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the transcript of the Family Court Act 1028 hearing (seeking the quick return of a child temporarily removed pending a fact-finding hearing) should not have been used to replace the abuse/neglect fact-finding hearing because the proof requirements are different:

Family Court Act § 1028 permits a parent to apply for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed from the custody of the parent pending the fact-finding hearing on the issue of abuse or neglect … . “[A] section 1028 hearing is intended to give a parent an opportunity for a prompt reunion with the child, pending trial” … . In analyzing an application for a child’s return under Family Court Act § 1028, a court must engage in a test balancing the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal … . Section 1028 hearings, however, were not intended to replace fact-finding hearings, as the evidentiary standards are different. Family Court Act § 1046 provides that “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” at a fact-finding hearing, whereas evidence “[i]n a dispositional hearing and during all other stages of a proceeding under” Family Court Act article 10 need only be “material and relevant” … . A determination on an application pursuant to section 1028 “should not be taken as any indication of what ultimate determination should be made by the Family Court as to [a] petition alleging abuse and neglect” … . “At a fact-finding hearing, any determination that a child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” … .

CPLR 4517, which governs the admissibility of prior testimony in a civil action, is applicable here … , as the Family Court Act does not prescribe the issue of whether testimony from a prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may be admitted into evidence on the petitioner’s direct case in a fact-finding hearing. Pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3), prior trial testimony of a witness may be used by any party for any purpose against another party if the court finds that such witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. In this matter, the Family Court made no such finding.

Here, the Family Court should not have admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing transcripts of testimony from the hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. As ACS now correctly concedes, the caseworker’s testimony at the prior hearing, which included hearsay statements, actually formed the basis of the court’s neglect finding at the subsequent fact-finding hearing. Matter of Louie L. V. (Virzhiniya T. V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07592, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award should not have been confirmed because it was indefinite and nonfinal:

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited …, an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] … ). An arbitration award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” … , or “if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy” … .

Here, the appellant established that the arbitration award was indefinite and nonfinal inasmuch as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable that were incurred prior to the date of the award were to be distributed. Moreover, the provision at issue created a new controversy between the parties with respect to the distribution of those funds. Accordingly, that portion of the award should have been vacated and the matter remitted … . Matter of Rosenberg v Schwartz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07587, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, setting aside the verdict, and ordering a new trial, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted prior to the close the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff had brought an action against the City of New York pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging he had not received a fair trial:

The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand alone cause of action (see e.g. Garnett v Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F3d 265, 278-279 [2d Cir 2016]), which should not have been dismissed prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief. CPLR 4401 permits a party to move for a directed verdict “after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue.” “[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … , even if the ultimate success of a plaintiff’s cause of action is unlikely … . Cromedy v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 10-22-19

 

,

CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, determined the pre-answer motion to dismiss a class action claim by tenants alleging various forms of rent overcharges was properly denied and the matter should move on for a ruling on whether the prerequisites for a class action under CPLR 902 are met:

… [T]here is an element of truth to defendants’ suggestion that the class claims — particularly those based on the alleged misrepresentation and inflation of the costs of IAIs [individual apartment improvements]— may require separate proof with respect to each plaintiff. Along those lines, defendants note that the operative complaint “alleges overcharges for inflated IAI increases of [various] amounts” — 136%, 97%, 82%, 104%, 113%, 33%, or 254% for various apartments — which they contend supports the idea that the alleged overcharges are separate wrongs to separate persons that do not form the basis for a class action … .

That leads to the friction point on this appeal: are we to look at the common basis for a damages claim or the degree of damage alleged? On the one hand, if, as defendants suggest, the differences in the specific means of harm is considered — that is, if at this stage the Court contemplates nuances of how those overcharges allegedly were accomplished — then plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy the factual component of CPLR 901 (a) (2). On the other hand, as plaintiffs note, to focus on potential idiosyncrasies within the class claims — distinctions that speak to damages, not to liability — at this juncture would potentially be to reward bad actors who execute a common method to damage in slightly different ways. * * *

Here the complaint addresses harm effectuated through a variety of approaches but within a common systematic plan … , and its class claims should not be dismissed at this juncture. Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07519, CtApp 10-22-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have relinquished jurisdiction without considering the factors required by statute before finding New York to be an inconvenient forum. Mother had relocated to Florida with the children and father brought a petition and an order to show cause alleging mother refused to allow telephone and electronic contact with the children:

… [M]other’s counsel made a request for dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (see Domestic Relations Law art 5-A [hereinafter UCCJEA]). The father opposed this request, advising that he had not received the notice of limited appearance and did not know that jurisdiction would be contested at the initial appearance. Following a brief discussion with counsel, Family Court granted the mother’s request, dismissed the petition, denied the relief sought in the order to show cause and directed all further proceedings to take place in Florida. The father appeals.

Family Court erred in summarily relinquishing jurisdiction. As the court acknowledged, it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the UCCJEA … . Although a court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction upon finding that New York is an inconvenient forum and another state is a more appropriate forum … , such a determination must be made in accord with the statutory directives established within Domestic Relations Law § 76-f. The statutory requirements were not met here. Matter of Cody RR. v Alana SS., 2019 NY Slip Op 07471, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NY BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ CHARTER SCHOOL COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHERS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after finding the petitioners in one of the two actions had the capacity to sue and standing, determined the State University of New York Board of Trustees’ Charter School Committee (the Committee) did not have the authority to promulgate regulations changing the teacher certification requirements for teachers in certain charter schools:

… [I]t is a basic principle of administrative law that an agency has only “those powers expressly conferred by its authorizing statute, as well as those required by necessary implication” … . Education Law § 355 (2-a) authorizes the Committee, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, . . . to promulgate regulations with respect to governance, structure and operations of [SUNY-authorized] charter schools.” Respondents assert that the regulations fall within this statutory authorization because teacher licensure pertains to the “operation” of SUNY-authorized charter schools. In analyzing this claim, we need not defer to the Committee’s interpretation of the Education Law, as “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . * * *

We … conclude that the inclusion of the word “operation” in Education Law § 355 (2-a) does not authorize the Committee to promulgate regulations pertaining to teacher licensure and certification. We further find that the regulations conflict with provisions of the Education Law that authorize the Commissioner to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers and that require most teachers in charter schools and pre-kindergartens to be certified in the same manner as other public school teachers … . The Committee therefore exceeded its authority in promulgating the regulations … . Matter of New York State Bd. of Regents v State Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 07458, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

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