You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE CLAIM DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF CLAIMANT’S SLIP AND FALL AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant in this slip and fall case did not meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act 11 and her claim was therefore properly dismissed. Although claimant submitted an aerial map in opposition to the motion to dismiss, only the information in the claim need be considered:

Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides that “[t]he claim shall state the . . . place where such claim arose.” Although “absolute exactness” is not required, “a claimant must provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability”  … . “[D]efendant is not required to ferret out or assemble information that [Court of Claims Act § ] 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege,” and “[f]ailure to abide by [the statute’s] pleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result” … . …

Claimant alleged that she fell “on the exterior stairs/landing located proximate to Moffit Hall and Clinton Dining Hall.” The record establishes, however, that there are three staircases proximate to Moffit Hall and Clinton Dining Hall. Claimant’s contention that the location stated in her claim necessarily referred to the sole staircase/landing between the two buildings is without merit because the claim did not allege that the situs of the accident occurred between the two buildings … . In opposition to the motion to dismiss, claimant submitted an aerial map of where she allegedly fell. However, the aerial map does not cure the pleading defect in her claim because the aerial map was not included in her claim, and defendant is not required to go beyond the claim to ascertain the situs of the injury … . Katan v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05746, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A RESETTLED ORDER WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING MOTHER’S SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court was without authority to issue a resettled order which substantially changed the original order. The original order, which was issued in the absence of testimony, provided that mother’s mental health and substance abuse problems be monitored by the Monroe County Probation Department. The Department declined because it does not handle custody matters. Family Court then issued the resettled order requiring mental health and substance abuse treatment for mother and allowing grandmother access to mother’s medical records:

“Resettlement of an order is a procedure designed solely to correct errors or omissions as to form or for clarification. It may not be used to effect a substantive change in or to amplify the prior decision of the court” ( …  see CPLR 2221).

… Family Court’s resettled order does “effect a substantive change” and was beyond the court’s authority to issue. The underlying petition included serious substance abuse and mental health allegations, but at no point was any actual testimony taken. These concerns were discussed during the stipulation colloquy before Family Court (Ames, J.), but the court ultimately determined to place the mother on probation subject to standard terms and conditions that did not impose independent evaluation requirements. In addition, the court was not authorized to defer to the probation department the decision as to whether the mother should undergo a substance abuse and/or mental health evaluation …  . The plain fact of the matter is that the colloquy resulting in the oral stipulation was not definitive on the evaluation issue. “To be enforceable, an open court stipulation must contain all of the material terms and evince a clear mutual accord between the parties” … . Although we are mindful of the court’s authority to require a party to undergo an evaluation, the resettled order was issued as a consent order, not as an express directive under Family Ct Act § 251. Given the absence of any record testimony, the resettled order cannot stand. Matter of Joan HH. v Maria II., 2019 NY Slip Op 05737, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

, , , , ,

STATEMENTS POSTED ON AN ELECTION-RELATED FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE ARE NOT SHIELDED BY IMMUNITY AND ARE ACTIONABLE IN THIS DEFAMATION CASE; TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF A COMPLAINT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined statements posted on an election-related Facebook page by defendant, a Sheriff running for County Executive, concerning plaintiff, a Deputy County Executive also running for County Executive, were actionable in this defamation case. The court noted that the defendant’s appeal of the denial of his motion to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint (CPLR 3024) was not before the court because a motion for leave to appeal had not been made (CPLR 5701 [b] [3]):

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that he is shielded from liability due to absolute immunity. This immunity protects government officials, such as defendant, “with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . As such, plaintiff cannot maintain a defamation claim against defendant based upon statements “emanating from official reports and communications” … . Although defendant was commenting about an investigation being conducted by his office, as well as responding to attacks on the credibility of his office, the documentary evidence in the record establishes that the challenged statements were not posted on the official site of the Chemung County Sheriff. Rather, they were posted on defendant’s campaign Facebook page and another Internet website. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot rely on absolute immunity … .

… The statement that plaintiff was “pilfering free gas from taxpayers” is “susceptible to a defamatory meaning, inasmuch as [it] convey[s], at a minimum, serious impropriety and, at worst, criminal behavior” … . Such statement also “has a precise meaning that is capable of being proven true or false” … . …

The complaint alleged that defendant published the false statements and that they “were made in bad faith, with reckless disregard for the truth” and “tend[ed] to subject plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace.” In view of these allegations, as well as the specific statements at issue, we are satisfied that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded malice … . Krusen v Moss, 2019 NY Slip Op 05733, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

,

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EXCUSE OFFERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

With regard to default judgments, CPLR 3215(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion.” The “one exception to the otherwise mandatory language of CPLR 3215(c) is that the failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint . . . may be excused if sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'”  … . “This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not offer any excuse for its failure to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment … for more than one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part  … . “Where, as here, a party moving for a default judgment beyond one year from the date of default fails to address any reasonable excuse for its untimeliness, courts may not excuse the lateness and shall’ dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Uddin, 2019 NY Slip Op 05649, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, ,

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

 

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