You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant contractor launched an instrument of harm in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she tripped on a piece of masonite that had been placed over concrete that had just been poured. There was also a question of fact whether the property owner had constructive notice of the condition:

The … defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Howell launched a force or instrument of harm through the failure to exercise reasonable care when its employee laid the subject masonite over the area of the floor where the self-leveling concrete had been poured … . …

The evidence proffered by the … defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the [defendants] lacked constructive notice of a hazardous condition on the premises. During an examination before trial, [defendant’s] operations director was asked about his inspection tour of the mall on the morning of the plaintiff’s fall. His repeated descriptions of what he “normally would” do and “probably would have” done are ambiguous as to whether he is describing a specific inspection, or merely describing general inspection policies and practices … . Pinto v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06157, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue was not supported by admissible evidence and should have been denied:

“To effect a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(1), a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper and that its choice of venue is proper” … . To succeed on their motion here, the defendants were obligated to demonstrate that, on the date that this action was commenced, neither of the parties resided in Kings County … . Only if the defendants made such a showing were the plaintiffs required to establish, in opposition, via documentary evidence, that the venue they selected was proper … .

Here, the defendants failed to submit their certificate of incorporation. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the computer printout they submitted in support of their motion from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations was inadmissible, since it was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record … . Therefore, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that their principal office was located in Nassau County and that the plaintiffs’ choice of venue in Kings County was improper … . O.K. v Y.M. & Y.W.H.A. of Williamsburg, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06156, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S NEGLIGENCE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the substantial plaintiff’s verdict in this wrongful death case should have been set aside. It was alleged that the NYS Transit Authority was negligent in failing to make sure all passengers were off the subway train when the train reached the end of the line, requiring that it be repositioned in the relay tunnel. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was intoxicated, remained on the train. At some point he fell from the train in the relay tunnel and was killed:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational people to conclude that the defendants’ alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries and death … . Even assuming that the defendants’ employees were negligent in failing to remove the decedent from the train before it was taken into the subject relay tunnel, the defendants’ negligence merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the decedent’s fall from the train …  rather than being one of its proximate causes. While the record evidence supports the plaintiffs’ theory that the decedent was in the area between the two northernmost subway cars when he fell to the tracks below, the circumstances that led the decedent to be in that area, and the cause of the fall itself, remain unknown and, therefore, speculative … . Williams v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06187, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Instead of answering the defendant’s expert opinion that the doctor’s actions were not the cause of the amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) which plaintiff alleged caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent, the plaintiff for the first time alleged the cause of death was septic shock, not AFE. Supreme Court erroneously denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege the new theory:

… [T]he defendant met his prima facie burden as to proximate cause by submitting the affidavit of an expert in maternal fetal medicine, who opined that any delay in the decedent undergoing an abortion procedure from the second trimester to the third trimester did not cause her to develop AFE. In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s prima facie showing, but rather alleged, for the first time, a new theory of causation, claiming that the decedent died of septic shock, not AFE. “A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars” … . …

“[O]nce discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show special and extraordinary circumstances in seeking leave to amend the complaint and the bill of particulars in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, three years after the commencement of the action and almost six months after the filing of the note of issue. The plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for relying solely on the medical examiner’s report and for failing to explore his new theory of causation earlier in the proceedings … . Moreover, permitting the amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would prejudice the defendant. Anonymous v Gleason, 2019 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, ,

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

 

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