You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED UPON HER DISMISSAL FROM A NURSING PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should have considered defendant’s affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations defense, in determining defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff brought fraud, breach of contract and prima facie tort causes of action against defendant. Plaintiff was enrolled in defendant’s licensed practical nurse (LPN) program and was dismissed by defendant based upon plaintiff’s performance in a clinical setting. The Third Department held that the action should have been brought in an Article 78 proceeding and was time-barred:

Supreme Court should have considered defendant’s affirmative defenses on the summary judgment motion. Although the notice of motion did not cite CPLR 3211 (a), it did seek dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, as well as “such other and further relief” as the court deemed just and proper, and defendant’s memorandum of law, submitted with the motion, addressed dismissal based on the statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, thereby providing plaintiff with adequate notice of these bases for the motion. … A defendant may raise an affirmative defense listed in CPLR 3211 (a) in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or, for most of those grounds, “may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s separate causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud and prima facie tort are all, at their core, challenges to defendant’s actions in dismissing her from the LPN program in a manner that allegedly was not in good faith and was without a sound factual basis, rendering her dismissal arbitrary and capricious. Thus, she should have brought her challenge in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Although courts generally possess the authority to convert a plenary action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding if jurisdiction of the parties has been obtained (see CPLR 103 [c]), conversion is not appropriate where the claims are barred by the four-month statute of limitations governing CPLR article 78 proceedings … . Meisner v Hamilton, Fulton, Montgomery Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2019 NY Slip Op 06558, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS INADEQUATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO INCREASED AWARDS FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the damages verdict as inadequate in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The Second Department ordered a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to an increased award of damages for past pain and suffering from $25,000 to $150,000 and for future pain and suffering from $0 to $100,000:

“While the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and the jury’s determination is entitled to great deference'” … , it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c] …). “Although prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts, they guide and enlighten them with respect to determining whether a verdict in a given case constitutes reasonable compensation” … ,

Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff was required to undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery as a result of the accident, the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inadequate to the extent indicated … .

Further, since it was undisputed that the cervical fusion, inter alia, permanently reduced the plaintiff’s cervical range of motion, the jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering was not based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … , and was inadequate to the extent indicated … . Chung v Shaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 06468, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

JUDGES IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ORDER UNIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIALS WHERE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND THE INJURIES ARE INTERTWINED AS THEY WERE IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE AND A NEW UNIFIED TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, setting aside the defense verdict on liability and ordering a new trial, determined that the trial judge had the discretion to order (and should have ordered) a unified trial (both liability and damages) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 and common law negligence action. Plaintiff (Castro) alleged the elevated work platform he was on collapsed and he fell 6 or 7 feet to the ground. There were no witnesses to the incident. Plaintiff alleged brain, head, shoulder and spine injuries. The defense alleged plaintiff was injured moving planks and did not in fact fall. Evidence of any brain injury was excluded from the trial. Because the evidence of brain injury was consistent with a fall, and inconsistent with moving planks, the exclusion of that evidence affected the fairness of the trial. The opinion makes it clear that judges in the Second Department have the discretion to order unified trials in personal injury cases:

Here, by any standard, a unified trial was warranted. Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes on owners or general contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty, and absolute liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to provide appropriate safety devices to workers who are subject to elevation-related risks” … . [Defendants] disputed the plaintiffs’ claim that Castro fell from a scaffold and contended that the accident resulted not from an elevation-related risk, but from Castro’s action in lifting wooden planks. Evidence relating to Castro’s brain injuries, which would not have occurred from lifting wooden planks, was probative in determining how the incident occurred … . Thus, the nature of the injuries had an important bearing on the issue of liability.

The Supreme Court did not exercise its available discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial. The court’s determination was predicated upon its perception that a bifurcated trial was strictly required by the Second Department’s “rules.” However, neither the statewide rule nor the governing precedent absolutely requires that the trial of a personal injury action be bifurcated. Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases. …

Because the issues of liability and Castro’s injuries were so intertwined, the court’s insistence upon bifurcation and its ensuing limitations on the scope of the medical evidence that could be elicited by the plaintiffs deprived them of a fair trial. Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06466, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND ENDORSEMENTS WAS “MATERIAL AND NECESSARY” TO THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BANK HAS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the bank in this foreclosure action to produce the original note and endorsements should have been granted. Defendant had challenged the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action and the production of the original note and endorsements was “material and necessary” to resolve the standing question:

It is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note provided by the plaintiff whether the separate page that bears the endorsement in blank was stamped on the back of the note, as alleged by the plaintiff, or on an allonge, and if on an allonge, whether the allonge was “so firmly affixed as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2). Since the answers to these questions are “material and necessary” to the defense of lack of standing, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to produce the original note and endorsements … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Charleston, 2019 NY Slip Op 06463, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO MOP UP TRACKED IN SNOW AND WATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant property owner (a school) was properly found negligent in failing to mop up tracked in snow and water in this slip and fall case. Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict should not have been granted:

Although a defendant is not required to “provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into a building during inclement weather, and has no obligation to cover all of its floors with mats or to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in precipitation” … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … . Here, evidence was presented at trial demonstrating that the defendant had actual notice of the wet condition in the area where the plaintiff fell approximately an hour before the accident, yet failed to remedy it. …

Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and affording her every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead rational individuals to the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s accident … .  Allen v Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 06462, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined personal jurisdiction was not obtained over defendant in this foreclosure action. The process server, who used the “affix and mail” method of service, was aware defendant was in the military:

After the hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff had not established personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4), known as “affix and mail” service, “may be used only where service under CPLR 308(1) or 308(2) cannot be made with due diligence'” … . “While the precise manner in which due diligence is to be accomplished is not rigidly prescribed, the requirement that due diligence be exercised must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to [CPLR 308(4)] will be received”… . A mere showing of several attempts at service at either a defendant’s residence or place of business may not satisfy the “due diligence” requirement before resort to affix and mail service … . ” [D]ue diligence’ may be satisfied with a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant’s residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times” … . …

According to the affidavit of service and the process server’s in-house work order sheet, however, the process server knew that the defendant was in active military service. Since the process server was aware that the defendant was engaged in active military service at the time the process server attempted service at the address, the process server’s four attempts at service prior to resorting to affix-and-mail service were not made when the defendant “could reasonably be expected to be found at such location” … . Mid-Island Mtge. Corp. v Drapal, 2019 NY Slip Op 06488, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have raised, sua sponte, issues not raised by the parties in granting defendants’ (the Wirths’) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server filed an affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been timely mailed to defendants. The affidavit did not state that the envelope was marked “personal and confidential” or that the envelope indicated it was from an attorney. There was no proof the envelope was not properly marked and the defendants had not raised these issues. The defendants merely asserted they never received the mailing. The Second Department also determined the amended complaint, adding additional parties, was a nullity because the court did not grant leave to amend:

Given that the Wirths argued that they did not receive the summons and complaint in the mail, the Supreme Court should not have determined, sua sponte, that jurisdiction was not acquired over the Wirths because the process server did not attest that the mailed copies of the summons and complaint were contained in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served (see CPLR 308[2] …). Courts are “not in the business of blindsiding litigants,” who expect the courts to decide issues on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments that were never made … . By raising the CPLR 308(2) envelope requirement on its own, the court deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to show compliance with that requirement. …

CPLR 3025(a) provides that a “party may amend his [or her] pleading once without leave of court within twenty days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a pleading responding to it.” A plaintiff’s failure to seek leave pursuant to CPLR 1003 to add a new defendant is a jurisdictional defect, and an amended complaint that is not filed in accordance with CPLR 1003 and 3025 is a legal nullity … . Hulse v Wirth, 2019 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITHIN 120 DAYS OF FILING AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. Defendant alleged he was not served with the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing and plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service with the clerk of the court:

While the failure to timely file an affidavit of service with the clerk of the court as required by CPLR 308(4) may, in the absence of prejudice, be corrected by court order pursuant to CPLR 2004 … , in this case, the plaintiff failed to seek such relief, and the Supreme Court declined to extend this time sua sponte … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to grant that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Zheleznyak v Gordon & Gordon, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06536, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the conditional order upon which dismissal of the complaint was based was not authorized because issue had not been joined at the time the order was made. Therefore the bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. However, because of the two year delay in moving to vacate the order, the bank is not entitled to interest, late charges, fees, costs and attorney’s fees incurred after the date of the 2014 conditional order. An unauthorized supplemental record on appeal, which was stipulated to by the parties, contained material that was not in the record and was not considered by the Second Department:

A pleading cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion by the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . Additionally, it appears that the complaint was ministerially dismissed, without a motion, and without the entry of any formal order by the court dismissing the complaint … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Spence, 2019 NY Slip Op 06529, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined that hearsay statements to the effect that plaintiff’s decedent had signed an “against medical advice [AMA]” form when he allegedly refused treatment at defendant hospital were not admissible under the Dead Man’s Statute or as statements against interest or admissions, or as business records:

“A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” ( … see CPLR 4518[a]). Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, the defendants failed to offer foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c) … . …

If an entry in the medical records “is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'”  … . Here … the entry clearly states that the decedent’s primary care physician, not the decedent himself, was the source of the information … . …

Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [witnesses] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute … [and] they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. …

The defendants argue that the plaintiff waived the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute by eliciting the communications at issue. However, “[t]he executor does not waive rights under the statute by taking the opponent’s deposition” … . … Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent’s interest when made … . Moreover, where the Dead Man’s Statute renders a witness’s testimony inadmissible, “the fact that the testimony would fall within an exception to the hearsay rule is simply irrelevant” … . Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

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