You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse and appellants’ motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he appellants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015(a) to vacate their default … . …

“A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court” … . “In making that discretionary determination, the court should consider relevant factors, such as the extent of the delay, prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the appellants set forth a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the centralized motion part of the Supreme Court on the return date of the plaintiff’s motion based on evidence of law office failure. In an affirmation, the appellants’ attorney explained that upon receiving the plaintiff’s motion, he directed his office’s legal assistant to note the return date of the motion on the office calendar, but that the return date had not been noted on the calendar. In addition, the appellants demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense based upon the statute of limitations. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Faragalla, 2019 NY Slip Op 05641, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation concerning the alleged malpractice was deemed conclusory and therefore did not raise a question of fact. The informed consent cause of action was dismissed because the medical procedure was not the proximate cause of the claimed injuries:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff ” must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . ” The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury'” … . Here, the defendants established through their expert affirmation that the surgery performed … did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s claimed injuries … . Gilmore v Mihail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05647, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, ,

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud cause of action should not have been granted. Supreme Court held the fraud action was duplicative of the breach of contract action:

“The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury” … . “Mere unfulfilled promissory statements as to what will be done in the future are not actionable as fraud and the injured party’s remedy is to sue for breach of contract” … . Where, however, it is alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations of present facts that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract, a cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement is not duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… [T]he cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The first cause of action alleges that the defendants knowingly made false representations in … financial statements, which were collateral to the APA [asset purchase agreement], that these false statements were made in order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the APA, that the plaintiff would not have entered into the APA but for these false statements, and that the plaintiff was injured by this fraudulent conduct …. As the first cause of action alleges misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the APA and further alleges that these misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the APA, the court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action. Did-it.com, LLC v Halo Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05644, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE NOTICES OF CLAIM NOTIFIED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS ONLY OF THE DAMAGES RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD HER DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint against the municipal defendants could not be amended to assert a derivative cause of action by plaintiff’s decedent’s mother:

In September 2015, the decedent commenced this action against the City, the Port Authority, and another defendant, alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The decedent died on August 7, 2016. Subsequently, the decedent’s mother, Marilyn Conn (hereinafter Marilyn), as administrator of the decedent’s estate and individually, moved for leave to substitute herself as the plaintiff in place of the decedent. She also moved for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death on behalf of the decedent’s estate and, in effect, a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity. …

… [T]he notices of claim filed against the City and the Port Authority were limited to allegations that, as a result of the accident, the decedent was caused to sustain damages related to his “personal injuries, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and medical expenses.” Marilyn was not identified as a claimant in the caption of the notices of claim, she was not mentioned in the text of the notices of claim, and there were no allegations that she, individually, sustained any damages for which compensation was sought from the City or the Port Authority … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Marilyn’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to amend the complaint to assert a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity, against the City and the Port Authority. Since the City and the Port Authority were not given timely notice of Marilyn’s derivative claim, the court should not have allowed it to be asserted against them.  Conn v Tutor Perini Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05643, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, ,

EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that emails which had inadvertently been provided to the plaintiff were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Therefore Supreme Court should not have granted a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b):

… [T]he defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing a right to protection of the subject emails … . The communications relate to the business of the defendants, rather than legal issues … , and nothing stated by in-house counsel in the emails sets him apart as a legal advisor in the discussion. The affidavits of the defendants’ CEO and in-house counsel, submitted in support of the cross motion, merely state in a conclusory manner that the communications were confidential and privileged. The defendants point to no particular communication in which in-house counsel gave legal advice, or in which the defendants’ other employees sought legal advice from in-house counsel. Saran v Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 05710, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

IN THIS EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER DISPUTE ABOUT A HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION, THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EACH PAYCHECK WITH THE PREMIUM DEDUCTION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT WRONG (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations in this employee-employer dispute about a health insurance premium contribution. The petitioner unsuccessfully argued each paycheck with the premium deduction was an independent wrong which tolled the statute of limitations:

A challenge to an administrative determination must be commenced within four months of the time the determination is “final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). “A challenged determination is final and binding when it has its impact’ upon the petitioner who is thereby aggrieved” … . An administrative determination regarding payment of salary or pay adjustments is final and binding, and a challenge thereto accrues, when the petitioner receives a check or salary payment reflecting the administrative determination … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply here to toll the statute of limitations … . The doctrine “may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct” … . “The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuing effects and a series of independent, distinct wrongs” … . Here, the Town made the determination to classify the petitioner as an employee hired after December 31, 2014, subject to a 15% health insurance premium contribution requirement, as reflected in her first paycheck issued in April 2015, more than two years prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Each subsequent paycheck deduction “represent[ed] the consequences of [that allegedly] wrongful act[ ] in the form of continuing damages,” and was not an independent wrong in itself … . Matter of Salomon v Town of Wallkill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05671, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted. The majority argued plaintiff’s testimony was incredible and therefore was properly disregarded. The dissent argued plaintiff’s testimony raised classic questions of fact about how the accident happened. The collision occurred when plaintiff was attempting to change lanes. The majority interpreted plaintiff’s testimony to mean that she was straddling two lanes and was not moving when the truck struck her SUV, which, based on photographic evidence, the majority found incredible as a matter of law:

The photographic evidence shows that plaintiff’s SUV struck the rear of defendants’ tractor-trailer as plaintiff was attempting to merge into defendants’ truck’s lane of traffic. Thus, plaintiff violated her “duty not to enter a lane of moving traffic until it was safe to do so” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a] …), “and [her] failure to heed this duty constitutes negligence per se”. * * ^

… [I]n summary judgment analysis, we must discount the plaintiff’s testimony where the plaintiff has “relied solely on [her] own testimony, uncorroborated by any other witnesses or evidence,” and her testimony belied “common sense” … . As these circumstances are presented in this case, plaintiff’s testimony was properly “disregarded as being without evidentiary value” … . Thus, plaintiff’s testimony raised no triable issues of fact. Castro v Hatim, 2019 NY Slip Op 05639, First Dept 7-16-19

 

, , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE EXPERT TESTIMONY PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER AT TRIAL DID NOT LIMIT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant doctor could not appeal the denial of defendant’s motion to limit the expert testimony which plaintiff could offer at trial in this medical malpractice action. The motion court’s ruling did not limit the issues to be tried. Therefore an appeal must be brought after trial:

It is well settled that “an order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . Here, Supreme Court’s decision merely permits the infant to offer various testimony of his expert witnesses and does not limit the scope of issues to be tried … . Therefore, appellate review of the court’s ruling “must await the conclusion of a trial so that the relevance of the proffered evidence, and the effect of [the court’s] ruling with respect thereto, can be assessed in the context of the record as a whole” … . Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed … . C.H. v Dolkart, 2019 NY Slip Op 05614, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

, , , , ,

ARTICLE 78 ACTION SEEKING TO PROHIBIT THE TRIAL JUDGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE FROM EXCLUDING TESTIMONY AS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DISMISSED AS INAPPROPRIATE; MATTER CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Article 78 proceeding brought by the district attorney against the trial judge in a criminal case seeking prohibition should have been dismissed. The trial judge had ruled that the conversations between an attorney and the defendant at the scene of the crime were protected by attorney-client privilege. The Article 78 action sought to prohibit the trial judge from adhering to that ruling. At the time of this Article 78 proceeding the criminal trial was over and defendant had been convicted. The matter was considered as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and, in cases involving the exercise of judicial authority, “is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” … . Respondent had jurisdiction over the criminal action against Mercer … and was empowered to preclude Doyle from testifying about matters protected by the attorney-client privilege … . Petitioner’s core complaint is that respondent erred in determining the scope of that privilege, and she may be correct … . Nevertheless, “prohibition will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however egregious the error may be, and however cleverly the error may be characterized by counsel as an excess of jurisdiction or power” … . To allow review of such matters would have an array of negative impacts, encouraging gamesmanship, “erect[ing] an additional avenue of judicial scrutiny in a collateral proceeding and . . . frustrat[ing] the statutory or even constitutional limits on review” … . Thus, inasmuch as petitioner does not point to “an unlawful use or abuse of the entire action or proceeding,” but rather “an unlawful procedure or error in the action or proceeding itself related to the proper purpose of the action or proceeding,” prohibition will not lie … . Matter of Heggen v Sise, 2019 NY Slip Op 05620, Third Dept 7-10-19

 

, , , , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Sprinkle’s) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted, noting that Sprinkle’s only connection with the corporation alleged to have breached the contract was his salary. The corporation’s contacts with New York could not, therefore, be imputed to Sprinkle:

The complaint fails to state a cause of action as against Sprinkle for tortious interference with contract, because there is no allegation that Sprinkle personally benefitted from the corporations’ alleged breach of contract; the only benefit he is alleged to have received is his salary from the corporations … .

Plaintiff failed to make a sufficient start on a showing of jurisdiction over Sprinkle to entitle it to jurisdictional discovery … . Because the conduct complained of involved the diversion of funds from outside New York to recipients outside New York, the “critical events,” and thus the situs of injury, were not in New York … . Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that Sprinkle received substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce (see CPLR 302[a][3][ii]). Because Sprinkle did not personally benefit from the breach of contract, the corporations’ contacts with New York cannot be imputed to him … .

Nor can Sprinkle be said to have “reasonably expected” his actions to have consequences in New York … as he neither did anything to avail himself of New York nor took any steps to project himself into New York. Given that Sprinkle had no contact with New York and did not purposefully avail himself of New York, the constitutional guarantee of due process bars New York courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over him. Greenbacker Residential Solar LLC v OneRoof Energy, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05487, First Dept 7-9-19

 

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