You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when she was struck by defendant’s bus making a right turn:

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting her own affidavit and a certified copy of the police accident report, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal in her favor, when the defendants’ vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a non-negligent explanation for striking the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff … . Rodriguez-Garcia v Bobby’s Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06221, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined serving the answer by mail did not increase to 65 days the statutory 60-day period for a motion to dismiss. The five-day “service by mail” extension applies to a response to service by mail, not to any time-periods which apply to the sender:

The Legislature did not intend CPLR 2103 (b) (2) as a means by which a party could, as a general matter, extend its own time to make a motion. Instead, the Legislature enacted the provision to give the party responding to service by mail the full amount of the “responding period” provided for the doing of an act … . * * *

In the situation presented here … a defendant will always have the statutory 60 days to move for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (e), regardless of how it chooses to serve its answer. There is no delay in the defendant’s time to make its motion due to papers being in transit, and there is no necessary intervening event between the defendant’s service of its answer and its ability to move under CPLR 3211 (e). We hold that CPLR 2103 (b) (2) does not give the defendant the option to extend that period by another five days, as the legislative intent behind CPLR 2103 (b) (2) was to give an additional five days to a responding party. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Maniatopoulos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06184 [175 AD3d 575], Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant doctor’s (Goldstein’s) motion to change the venue of this medical malpractice action from Bronx to Westchester County should not have been granted. The majority held the burden was on Goldstein to demonstrate the need for a change of venue and that burden was not met:

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action in Bronx County, alleging that defendants were negligent in rendering podiatric care and treatment to her between April and September 2016. Defendants moved and cross-moved to transfer venue to Westchester County. WestMed and Rye submitted an affidavit of their medical director averring that Dr. Goldstein was one of their employees in Westchester. Dr. Goldstein submitted an affidavit averring that he had offices in Bronx County and Westchester County. He indicated that Westchester County was where his principal place of business was located because that was where he spent the majority of his time. However, he also averred that he maintained privileges at St. Barnabas Hospital and supervised podiatric residents at two St. Barnabas Hospital clinics where approximately 150 patients per month were seen. He averred that in addition he saw approximately 20-25 patients per week at a Bronx Park Medical pavilion located at 2016 Bronxdale Avenue in the Bronx.

Plaintiff is suing not only Westmed Medical Group, P.C. and Rye Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, but Dr. Goldstein individually. Since Dr. Goldstein is a party to the lawsuit, venue is proper in the county where he may be said to reside. CPLR 503(a) provides that the place of trial “shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced,” and, insofar as relevant here, “[a] party resident in more than one county shall be deemed a resident of each such county” … . Dr. Goldstein may also be viewed as an individually-owned business, and thus a resident of any county in which he has a principal office (CPLR 503[d]). Thus, an individually-owned business, much as a partnership, may be deemed a resident of the county where it has its principal office, as well as any county in which the individual owner being sued resides … . Siegel notes that the “principal office” county is an alternative; venue may still be based on the residence of natural-born parties … .

Applying these principles, Dr. Goldstein’s affidavit, attesting to residency in Westchester County but devoid of supporting documentation of residency, was insufficient to prove that plaintiff’s designation of Bronx County as venue was improper … . Lividini v Goldstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06150, Fourth Dept 8-20-19

 

, , , , ,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD HOUSED FOR MORE THAN FIVE WEEKS IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM BECAUSE NO APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, considering the appeal under an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined a 16-year-old developmentally disabled child (Olivia) did not have a private right of action against Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (CVPH), the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) or the Department of Health (DOH) for housing her in the CVPH emergency room when no appropriate residential facility was available. The opinion is too comprehensive and covers too many substantive issues to be fairly summarized here:

In 2018, Olivia CC. (hereinafter the child), a minor with complex developmental disabilities, was stranded in the emergency room of respondent Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (hereinafter CVPH) for more than five weeks while she waited for a residential school placement. The child was not in need of medical or psychiatric care. However, neither her family nor the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (hereinafter OPWDD) — the agency legislatively charged with protecting the welfare of persons with developmental disabilities — could provide her with safe interim housing. CVPH thus retained the child in the emergency room, where she could not attend school, participate in community activities or go outdoors, and CVPH was forced to use scarce medical resources to provide for her nonmedical needs. Unfortunately, the child is not the first minor with special needs to be marooned for weeks or months in an emergency room, as hospitals find themselves serving as the last resort for providing shelter to children in crisis … . The difficult legal issues presented here call into question the extent of the responsibilities of the legislative and administrative functions of government to some of our society’s most vulnerable members, and the limitations on the power of courts to protect them. * * *

Our conclusion that the amended petition/complaint provides this Court with no grounds to intervene in respondents’ operations should not be misunderstood as condonation of the child’s prolonged and unnecessary hospitalization or of respondents’ failure to provide her with appropriate assistance. Nevertheless, this record does not permit a determination of the propriety of constitutional or equitable relief, and relief grounded in the statutory provisions relied upon here must come from the Legislature or from respondents’ policy choices. Thus, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s judgment. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 2019 NY Slip Op 06119, Third Dept 8-8-19

 

, ,

WHERE ARBITRABLE AND NONARBITRABLE CLAIMS ARE INTERTWINED, COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE ARBITRATION DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, under the terms of the employment contract, even if the matter involves both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, any court procedures should be stayed until the determination of the arbitrable issues:

Paragraph 4(b) of the consulting agreement, which addresses the defendant’s right to terminate the plaintiff’s retention for cause, ends with the following sentence: “Any dispute between the parties shall be resolved first by submitting same for mediation to AAA, and absent a resolution, then by a 3 member panel Arbitration through AAA.” …

The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 7503(a) to compel arbitration and to stay this action pending completion of the arbitration, invoking the above-quoted arbitration clause. The plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that the clause applied only to disputes relating to termination, and not to actions alleging breach of contract. Without conceding that the scope of the arbitration clause was limited to the resolution of disputes involving termination, the defendant argued that the reason the plaintiff was not paid was because it was terminated for cause. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. …

“[W]here arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course is to stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly where the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters”… . Even assuming, without deciding, that the only arbitrable dispute is whether the plaintiff was properly terminated for cause, judicial proceedings should be stayed until that issue is resolved, since that determination may also dispose of the plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action … . Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v Settlement Servs. Arbitration & Mediation, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06073, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRIMARY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A VOCATIONAL EXAM DESCRIBED THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, THE MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court was not required to deny defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to a vocational exam because defense counsel did not submit a separate affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. The requirements of 22 NYCRR 202,7 (c) were met in the primary affirmation submitted is support of the motion. The Second Department also determined the plaintiff was properly ordered to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination in this Labor Law personal injury action:

… [T]he Supreme Court was not required to deny that branch of the defendants’ motion on the ground that the defendant failed to submit an affirmation attesting to a good faith pre-motion attempt to resolve the dispute with the plaintiff. While it may be the better practice for the movant to detail such good faith efforts in an affirmation separate from the affirmation addressing the merits of the motion, under the circumstances of this case, the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) were satisfied by the primary affirmation of counsel submitted in support of the motion wherein counsel detailed her efforts to obtain the plaintiff’s compliance with the extant court order, including the failure of the plaintiff to appear for a duly noticed examination and the failure of the plaintiff’s counsel to respond to correspondence, submitted with the defendants’ motion papers, seeking the plaintiff’s voluntary cooperation. Thus, the defendants amply demonstrated that the plaintiff was refusing to voluntarily cooperate with a court-ordered examination … . …

… [T]he plaintiff was noticed and directed to appear for a medical examination to be conducted by a vocational rehabilitation specialist on February 26, 2018. The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice or appear for the examination. Given the nature of this action and the parties’ past discovery disputes, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination … . Encalada v Riverside Retail, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06066, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 relating to disclosure should not have been granted. The cross-motion was not accompanied by defense counsel’s affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the issues addressed by the motion:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place and nature of the consultation as well as the issues discussed. Here, the affirmation of good faith submitted by the defendants’ counsel in support of the cross motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 failed to provide any detail of the claimed efforts to resolve the issues. While the defendants’ counsel asserted that he had conversations with the plaintiff’s counsel, he did not identify the dates of such conversations or the name of the attorney with whom he conversed. Therefore, the cross motion should have been denied … . Bronstein v Charm City Hous., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06058, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A FIREFIGHTER PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in this personal injury action brought by a firefighter pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a. The firefighter alleged he tripped over a torn rug in the fire department office. The torn rug violated provisions of the NYC Administrative Code. The Second Department took great pains to explain the criteria for setting aside a verdict as a matter of law and as against the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPLR 4404:

Although there were no other individuals present when the plaintiff fell, his supervisor immediately responded to “the loud bang” that resulted from the accident. The plaintiff’s supervisor prepared a report that morning, which stated that the plaintiff had tripped on a piece of loose rug. Another one of the plaintiff’s supervisors testified that he responded to the location of the accident and observed “a ripped carpet there.” Photographs of the tear in the carpet that caused the plaintiff to fall were admitted into evidence and identified by the plaintiff’s witnesses. * * *

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, he felt a “popping in [his] leg.” A doctor who examined the plaintiff after the accident, Leonard Harrison, testified that the plaintiff tore his hamstring as the result of the subject accident.

The City did not present any evidence to show that the plaintiff’s accident was caused by something other than the tear in the carpet, or that the accident did not occur at all. Although the jury was not required, as a matter of law, to credit the plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony …  the City’s efforts to impeach the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident were particularly weak.  * * *

Despite the City’s attacks, the plaintiff’s testimony as to the cause of the accident was consistent throughout the course of the trial. Moreover, his testimony regarding the cause of the accident was consistent with the testimony he gave at his deposition, in which he repeatedly testified that “[his] foot got caught on a piece of torn rug, where [he] los[t] [his] balance and tripped.” The plaintiff’s trial testimony was also consistent with the reports he gave to his supervisor and to doctors shortly after the accident occurred.

On this record, any conclusion that the plaintiff’s accident was the result of some other unidentified cause, or that the entire incident was fabricated, could only be based upon mere speculation … . Annunziata v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06055, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, , , ,

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE ORIGINAL BORROWERS AGAINST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED, CIVIL CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the subpoona issued by the current owners of property subject to a foreclosure action (the Frankels) to the attorney (Satran) who represented the parties who initially took out the loan (the Confinos) should not have been quashed, the action for civil contempt against the attorney should not have been dismissed, and attorney-client privilege could only be asserted at a subsequent deposition:

“A party or nonparty moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” … . ” Should the [movant] meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of [the] action'” … .

Here, Satran failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating either that the requested disclosure was “utterly irrelevant” to the action or that the “futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . * * *

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted the Frankels’ motion to hold Satran in civil contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena by failing to appear for a deposition. “To prevail on a motion to hold another in civil contempt, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” … . ” To satisfy the prejudice element, it is sufficient to allege and prove that the contemnor’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party'” … .

Here, it was undisputed that Satran failed to comply with the subpoena by failing to appear for a deposition and that he had knowledge of the terms of the subpoena. Moreover, the Frankels demonstrated that Satran’s conduct prejudiced their right under CPLR 3101(a)(4) to obtain all information relevant and necessary to their defense of the present action and their cross claims against the Confinos … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Confino, 2019 NY Slip Op 06114, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF A LOST NOTE AND COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the bank, inter alia,  did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice provisions and failed to submit sufficient proof of a lost note in this foreclosure action:

… [A]lthough the plaintiff came forward with evidence establishing that the note was assigned to it and establishing the note’s terms, the affidavit of lost note submitted in support of its motion failed to establish the facts that prevent the production of the original note (see UCC 3-804 …). Additionally, we note that Riley’s out-of-state affidavit lacked a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(c), although such defect by itself would not be fatal to the plaintiff’s motion … .

Further, the evidence submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Proper service of the RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendant pursuant to the terms of the statute … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not provide evidence of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … .

Likewise, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage requiring it to give notice of default prior to demanding payment in full … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Cope, 2019 NY Slip Op 06111, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

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