You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED IN THIS OUT-OF-STATE ASBESTOS-RELATED INSURANCE ACTION, THE NONPARTY HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE INSURER AND MAY POSSESS RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW THE INSURANCE POLICIES WERE INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to quash a nonparty subpoena in this out-of-state asbestos-related insurance action should not have been granted:

“CPLR 3101 (a) (4) allows a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty, and provides that [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’ ” … . The phrase “material and necessary” in CPLR 3101 “must be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ” …

“An application to quash a subpoena should be granted [o]nly where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious . . . or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … , and the burden is on the party seeking to quash a subpoena to make such a showing … . …

“[A] witness’s sworn denial of any relevant knowledge …” … is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the discovery sought is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the subpoena, if honored, will obviously and inevitably fail to turn up relevant evidence  … . … [The nonparty’s] deposition testimony is … potentially relevant because she has personal knowledge of how [the insurer] interpreted and enforced similar “consent” provisions of other excess policies while she was employed by [the insurer]. Matter of Barber v Borgwarner, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05850, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank had abandoned the foreclosure action by failure to move for a default judgment within one year. The bank’s participation in mandatory settlement conferences did not constitute the initiation of an action for a default judgment:

CPLR 3215(c) provides, in part, that if the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, “the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion” … . “The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts shall’ dismiss claims … for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . However, the failure to timely seek a default judgment may be excused if “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . To establish sufficient cause as required by CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment and demonstrate that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

… [A]fter this action was released from the mandatory foreclosure settlement conference part in July 2016, the plaintiff was authorized to proceed with the prosecution of this action. However, despite the fact that the appellants failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action after being served with process, the plaintiff took no steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against the appellants. The plaintiff’s participation in the mandatory foreclosure settlement part conferences did not constitute the initiation of proceedings for the entry of a default judgment. Moreover, more than one year passed from the time that the plaintiff was authorized to resume prosecution of this action prior to the appellants moving in October 2017 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned …. In light of the plaintiff’s failure to meet its burden to show sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as abandoned, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the plaintiff demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious cause of action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Slone, 2019 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. There was sharply conflicting testimony about how the accident happened and whether defendant fled the scene. A witness, Stephen, who allegedly chased defendant down after the accident was not allowed to testify that defendant appeared to be intoxicated:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in excluding Stephen’s testimony that defendant exhibited indicia of intoxication during their interaction immediately after the accident and that, in his opinion, she was intoxicated. Although defendant’s failure to remain at the scene meant that Stephen was the only witness who had an opportunity to observe defendant and interact with her after the accident, the court prohibited Stephen from testifying about his observations of defendant on the ground that he was not an “expert” in signs of intoxication. Contrary to the court’s ruling, it is well settled that a lay witness may testify regarding his or her observation that another individual exhibited signs of intoxication … , and also regarding his or her opinion that another individual was intoxicated … . …

… [P]laintiffs should have been permitted to present Stephen’s testimony with respect to whether defendant appeared to be intoxicated, which would allow the jury to consider whether and to what degree alcohol impaired defendant’s senses and her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events about which she testified at trial. …

… Stephen’s proposed testimony regarding his observations of defendant, i.e., that she fumbled with her license, slurred her speech, and smelled of alcohol, was not cumulative of other evidence already before the jury … . …

Defendant testified that she did not fumble with her license, her speech was not slurred, she did not recall her eyes being “glassy,” and there was no alcohol on her breath. Thus, the excluded testimony from Stephen would have provided ” evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which [defendant] has endeavored to prove’ ” … and therefore fell within the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  Brooks v Blanchard, 2019 NY Slip Op 05847, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF APPEALS COULD NOT PURSUE STATE WAGE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH THE STATE WAGE CLAIMS WERE RELEASED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined that the Commissioner of Labor and the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) were bound by the federal district court’s release in a class action alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages and unlawful deductions. The IBA had awarded two members of the class state wage claims together with interest and penalties:

Procedurally, IBA erred in entertaining this issue. In the final approval order, the District Court clearly and unmistakably retained exclusive and continuing subject matter jurisdiction of the Stewart class action “for the purposes of supervising the implementation, effectuation, enforcement, construction, administration and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment.” Undoubtedly, the District Court “has the power to enforce an ongoing order against relitigation so as to protect the integrity of a complex class settlement over which it retained jurisdiction” … . … * * *

Because we have determined that claimants have released their dual wage claims, the focus now necessarily concerns the concept of privity, and whether it exists between claimants and respondents [Commissioner of Labor, et al]. We find that the holding in Applied Card Sys., Inc. (11 NY3d at 124) is dispositive of this issue.

The Applied Card Court addressed whether the state Attorney General was precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from pursuing on the class members’ behalf their restitution claims released in an underlying class action settlement. The Court held that because the Attorney General was pursuing claims identical to the ones that had been released that fact alone established privity … . The facts herein are virtually indistinguishable from Applied Card. Here, respondents, on behalf of claimants, seek to pursue their released dual wage claims. As such, privity has been established between claimants and respondents. Matter of Silvar v Commissioner of Labor of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05841, First Dept 7-30-19

 

, ,

SPOLIATION WARRANTED STRIKING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the destruction of plaintiff’s truck, which was allegedly struck by defendant’s truck, warranted striking the complaint:

… [O]n their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, the defendants sustained their burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the truck at the time it was purportedly “seized and disposed” of, that the truck had been seized and disposed of before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the truck was relevant to the litigation … . Furthermore, the defendants demonstrated that their ability to prove their defense had been significantly, if not fatally, compromised by the loss of the truck. Under the circumstances presented, the sanction of striking the complaint was appropriate … . Delmur, Inc. v School Constr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05764, Second Dept 7-24-19\

 

AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an order that was not served on the defendant by the plaintiff, here an order striking the answer if discovery demands were not complied with by a specified date, was not enforceable:

… [T]he plaintiff, as the successful moving party given that the Supreme Court conditionally granted that branch of the prior motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer, was required to serve the May 2016 order on the defendant for that order to be enforceable against the defendant with respect to its answer being stricken in the event that it failed to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016 … . The plaintiff’s contention that since the May 2016 order did not specify that the plaintiff had to serve a copy of that order with notice of entry upon the defendant, the plaintiff did not have to do so before that order was enforceable against the defendant, is without merit (see CPLR 2220). Since the defendant did not have notice of the May 2016 order, its failure to provide discovery responses by June 17, 2016, was not willful. Wolf Props. Assoc., L.P. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05808, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action should have been granted more time to serve the defendant by publication:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service upon “good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. Good cause will not exist where a plaintiff fails to make any effort at service, or fails to make at least a reasonably diligent effort at service. By contrast, good cause may be found to exist where the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve process is a result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control” … .

If a plaintiff fails to establish good cause for an extension, courts must consider whether an extension is warranted in the interest of justice … . A showing of reasonably diligent efforts at service is not required, but courts may consider diligence along with other factors, including “the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v James, 2019 NY Slip Op 05807, Second Dept 7-24-19

, , , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY, HERE THE ABILITY FOR UNLIMITED AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED; SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Supreme Court should not, sua sponte, have granted relief which was not requested by a party. Petitioner allegedly was injured trying to board a subway train. Before filing a notice of claim petitioner commenced a CPLR 3102 (c) proceeding to obtain discovery before starting the action. The court granted the petition and, sua sponte, gave the petitioner permission to amend the notice of claim, which had not yet been filed, within 30 days of filing the note of issue. The Second Department noted that a sua sponte order is not appealable and exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal (CPLR 5701[a][2]; [c]):

Turning to the merits, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 2214(a), an order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefor'” . “However, the court may grant relief that is warranted by the…  facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court strayed from this principle when, in addition to granting, in effect, that branch of the petition which was for an order preserving material related to the accident, it also sua sponte granted a nearly unlimited prospective right to the petitioner to amend a notice of claim that had not yet been served. This sua sponte relief was dramatically different from the pre-action discovery that was the subject of the petition … . Furthermore, the papers before the court did not support the award of such additional relief, since the absence of a notice of claim rendered it impossible to determine whether the future notice of claim or any amendments thereto would be in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e. We also agree with the appellants that they were prejudiced insofar as the court set a permissive timeline for amending the notice of claim that potentially could be, inter alia, beyond the statute of limitations and after the completion of discovery. Matter of Velez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05781, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY IN NEW YORK, THE ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY, INCLUDING OVERT ACTS, WERE PROPERLY PLED AS PART OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although there is no cause of action for civil conspiracy in New York, the conspiracy alleged here was validly pled as part of the fraud cause of action. The unjust enrichment cause of action should have been dismissed because there was no close relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The complaint did not support the punitive damages claim because it did not allege defendants’ actions were aimed at the public or showed moral turpitude. The permanent injunction cause of action was validly pled because the injury cannot be fully compensated by money damages. The action stemmed from a failed partnership to develop a cure for rare genetic blood disorders:

The complaint states a cause of action for fraud by alleging that Sloan-Kettering knowingly misrepresented or omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to rely upon it, that plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation or omission, and that plaintiff sustained injury … . …

… “[C]ivil conspiracy is not recognized as an independent tort in this State” … . Rather, the “allegations in the complaint herein charging conspiracy are deemed part of the remaining causes of action to which they are relevant” … . Here, the conspiracy charge remains as part of the fraud cause of action. …

… “[L]iability for fraud may be premised on knowing participation in a scheme to defraud, even if that participation does not by itself suffice to constitute the fraud” … . Allegations of conspiracy “serve to enable a plaintiff to connect a defendant with the acts of his co-conspirators where without it he could not be implicated” … .

… [P]laintiff sufficiently alleges overt acts …. …

… [T]he liability of a defendant as a conspirator for co-conspirators’ wrongful acts “does not necessarily depend upon his active participation in the particular overt acts” … . Moreover, once a conspiracy is established, all defendants are liable for each other’s acts in furtherance of the conspiracy … . Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 2019 NY Slip Op 05754, First Dept 7-23-19

 

,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED, THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION, SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A BID ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and therefore the Article 78 petition seeking review of the disqualification of a bid on a construction project must be denied. The appellate division, by statute, has jurisdiction only after an administrative hearing. Here petitioner’s request for a hearing was denied:

To commence this proceeding here, petitioner relied on Executive Law § 313 (5) (c), which states that, “[w]ithout limiting other grounds for the disqualification of bids . . . on the basis of non-responsibility, a contracting agency may disqualify the bid . . . as being non-responsible for failure to remedy notified deficiencies contained in the contractor’s utilization plan within a period of time specified in regulations promulgated by the director after receiving notification of such deficiencies from the contracting agency.” The statute further provides that “[w]here the contracting agency states that a failure to remedy any notified deficiency in the utilization plan is a ground for disqualification[,] the contractor shall be entitled to an administrative hearing, on a record[.] . . . A final administrative determination made following such hearing shall be reviewable in a proceeding commenced under [CPLR] article [78] . . . [and] shall be commenced in [this Court]” (Executive Law § 313 [5] [c]). The last quoted portion of the statute grants this Court original jurisdiction in a proceeding to challenge a final administrative determination that was made following a specified type of hearing, which is otherwise provided for in that paragraph. Respondent’s determination at issue here was not made following a hearing; indeed, the determination dismissed petitioner’s request for a hearing and petitioner is now seeking, as relief in this proceeding, a court order compelling respondent to conduct such a hearing. As no statute grants this Court original jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioner is challenging, we must dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … . Matter of Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05730, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

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