You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY SHE WAS NOT TICKETED; DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCREASED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO THE INCREASED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that defendant, in this traffic accident case, should not have been allowed to testify that she did not receive a traffic ticket. The court also noted that the trial judge properly determined the damages for past pain and suffering should be increased, but that the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to the increased amount. The trial judge had unconditionally increased the damages amount:

It is well established that “[e]vidence of nonprosecution is inadmissible in a civil action” … . In our view, however, that was the only error during trial … . We conclude that, “standing alone” … , the error was harmless, and therefore the court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought to set aside the jury verdict and a new trial on all issues (see CPLR 2002).

Plaintiff further contends that the jury’s damages award for pain and suffering materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries and that the deviation was not cured by the court’s increase of the award for past pain and suffering. We reject that contention. We conclude that the court properly determined that the jury’s verdict for past pain and suffering should be increased to $125,000 and that the award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The court, however, erred in unconditionally increasing the past pain and suffering award. ” [T]he proper procedure when a damages award is inadequate is to order a new trial on damages unless [a] defendant stipulates to the increased amount’ ” … . Queen v Kogut, 2019 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT REFLECT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged her bowel was perforated during surgery. The defense expert testified the bowel must be fully inspected as it is replaced, section by section. However, defendant surgeon testified he did not fully inspect the bowel. In addition the jury was asked to determine whether the bowel was subjected to a “focused inspection.” However there was no trial evidence equating a “focused inspection” with the standard of care. A new trial was necessary:

The weight of the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiff due, in no small part, to defendant’s testimony that he not only failed to perform a “focused inspection” of the bowel, but that “[he could not] not observe it” as he returned it into plaintiff’s abdomen. In not “observing” the bowel, defendant plainly could not have conducted a careful visualization of the body part as it was returned to plaintiff’s body; therefore he was plainly not performing a “focused inspection.” Defendant also admitted that “[he] didn’t specifically look for [bruising]” of the bowel, which his own expert testified is required when inspecting the bowel during an aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Defendant also testified that he only looked at the bowel’s top side. Although his expert did not testify that defendant was personally required to view the other side, she did explain that the other surgeon in the operating room must view that side so that both surgeons, collectively, can view the entire bowel. Defendant did not testify that he ensured that the assisting surgeon carefully viewed the back side of the bowel, segment by segment. Moreover, the assisting surgeon did not testify that defendant instructed her to do so. Inasmuch as defendant’s conduct does not meet the standard articulated by the expert witnesses, we conclude that the evidence so preponderates in plaintiff’s favor that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict … Monzon v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , ,

COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner must seek review of the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 40.40 by direct appeal, not by the instant Article 78 action for prohibition or mandamus re: the district attorney and the judge. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People had legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment at the time he pled guilty to a prior indictment. County Court denied that motion without a hearing, even though County Court noted it could not determine whether the People had legally sufficient evidence at the time petitioner pled guilty:

The District Attorney contends that petitioner may not obtain collateral review of County Court’s denial of his motion through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We agree. “Neither [of the extraordinary remedies of] prohibition nor mandamus lies as a means to obtain collateral review of an alleged error of law particularly where, as here, there is an adequate remedy at law by way of a direct appeal” … . Any error in County Court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss indictment No. 3 without a hearing is, at most, a mere error of law that does not justify the invocation of the extraordinary remedies sought … . Matter of Davis v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 04794, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DENY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, THEREFORE JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON THE COURT, THE MECHANICS OF SUCCESSFULLY DENYING JURISDICTION EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction was properly denied because the defense was waived when defendant did not specifically deny an allegation of general jurisdiction made in the complaint. The court explained the mechanics of denying jurisdiction:

… [T]he defendant argues that it asserted a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in its answer, and thus preserved the issue for adjudication in its present motion.

Personal jurisdiction is not an element of a claim, and matters that are not elements need not be pleaded in the complaint …. Where the plaintiff has not alleged facts specifically addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction in its complaint, the defendant must assert lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in order to give plaintiff notice that it is contesting it (see CPLR 3018). Where the plaintiff elects to allege facts specifically addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction in its complaint, the defendant’s denial of those allegations may be sufficient to preserve defendant’s jurisdictional defense … . …

The specific allegations of plaintiff’s complaint … track, almost verbatim, the language of personal jurisdiction in CPLR 302, which provides the bases for specific jurisdiction. Defendant’s denial of these allegations is sufficient to provide notice to plaintiff that it is contesting specific jurisdiction.

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint paragraphs 83 and 84 purport to establish a basis for general jurisdiction. They were not denied by defendant, rather defendant admitted them to the extent that it “is a duly organized foreign corporation doing business in New York . . .” This answer, interposed in 2004, before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US 117 (2014), would have provided a basis for general jurisdiction. It, therefore, does not qualify as a specific denial that would have put plaintiff on notice that the defendant is contesting general jurisdiction. Defendant’s failure to clearly provide an objection to general jurisdiction in its answer waived the defense and conferred jurisdiction upon the court … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 04777, First Dept 6-13-19

 

,

A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THEREFORE, DID NOT START TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the prior foreclosure action, which was dismissed on the ground the plaintiff lacked standing, did not accelerate the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations was not triggered by the dismissed action:

[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due, and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt” … . Acceleration occurs, inter alia, “when a creditor commences an action to foreclose upon a note and mortgage and seeks, in the complaint, payment of the full balance due” … . “[A]n acceleration of a mortgaged debt, by either written notice or the commencement of an action, is only valid if the party making the acceleration had standing at that time to do so” … .

Auguste contends that the commencement of the prior action in 2007 accelerated the debt, and that the commencement of the instant action, seven years later, was beyond the statute of limitations. Where, as here, the prior action is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing, the purported acceleration is a nullity, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run at the time of the purported acceleration … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Auguste, 2019 NY Slip Op 04747, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that the notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked:

By notice of motion dated January 6, 2016, the claimants sought leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc, or, alternatively, for leave to file a late notice of claim. A proposed amended notice of intention to file a claim was included with the motion, and it included the verification which was missing from the original. In the order appealed from, the Court of Claims granted the claimants’ motion for leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a “notice of intention to file a claim shall be verified in the same manner as a complaint in an action in the supreme court.” The Court of Appeals has held that “there is no basis for treating an unverified or defectively verified claim or notice of intention any differently than an unverified or defectively verified complaint is treated under the CPLR in Supreme Court” … . Here, as the Court of Claims found, the defendant was not prejudiced by the omission of a verification. Moreover, the court noted that CPLR 2001 permits an omission or defect to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just … . Ordentlich v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04710, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , , , ,

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied all but one of the defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on lack of personal jurisdiction, pending further discovery. The traffic accident happened in New Jersey. The plaintiffs’ van was struck from behind by a freight truck leased by Finkle (a New Jersey corporation) from Ryder Truck Rental and driven by defendant Larios, a resident of Pennsylvania. All the plaintiffs were residents of New York. The Second Department found that there was no general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and no long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a])(3) (tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state). However there may jurisdiction against Finkle pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (conducting business within the state):

… [Plaintiffs] have not alleged facts in opposition which would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under New York’s general jurisdiction statute, CPLR 301, over Larios, who was not domiciled in New York, or over Finkle, which was not incorporated in New York and did not have its principal place of business in New York … . …

Under CPLR 302(a)(3), “[t]he situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff” … . Here, since the accident which caused the injuries occurred in New Jersey, CPLR 302(a)(3) does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants in New York … .

… .Finkle asserted that it is a New Jersey corporation with its business address in New Jersey, and Larios stated that, at the time of the accident, he was transporting a load for the United States Postal Service within the State of New Jersey. However, Finkle admitted that it had terminals at four New York locations at which it parked its vehicles. Based upon these facts, and given Finkle’s failure to submit trip logs, manifests, or other documentary evidence to support its assertion that the load Larios was transporting was being shipped within the State of New Jersey and had no relationship to Finkle’s New York business, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny as premature that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Finkle, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery. Qudsi v Larios, 2019 NY Slip Op 04742, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND EXPERT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS DIVERTED WATER ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH FORMED A PATCH OF BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s request to enter the Rizzetta defendants’ property to allow inspection and expert examination of the alleged diversion of water from the property onto a public road should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured riding his bicycle when he hit a patch of black ice, slipped and fell:

CPLR 3120(1)(ii) provides that a party may serve another party with notice “to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession, custody or control of the party served for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, sampling, testing, photographing or recording by motion pictures or otherwise the property or any specifically designated object or operation thereon.” Motions seeking such discovery “are routinely granted when a central issue in the case is the condition of the real property under inspection” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. A central issue in this litigation is the source of the water which allegedly caused the injury-producing ice condition. An owner of private land abutting a public roadway may be liable for injuries sustained from a fall on ice on the public roadway, if the “ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway” … . The plaintiff’s theory of the Rizzetta defendants’ liability is premised upon the Rizzetta defendants’ alleged diversion of water from their property onto the public roadway. Although the probative value of the inspection may be weakened by the passage of time since the accident occurred, such delay is not a basis for denying the plaintiff’s discovery request where, as here, the inspection may still aid the parties in preparation for trial … . Zupnick v City of New Rochelle, 2019 NY Slip Op 04754, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PORTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ APPRAISAL REPORT IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE THE PROPER VALUATION METHOD WAS USED; THE EVIDENTIARY RULING ON THE MOTION IN LIMINE IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE RULING AFFECTS THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the portions of motion in limine seeking to strike parts of respondents’ appraisal report in this condemnation proceeding should not have been granted. The court noted that the evidentiary ruling was appealable because it limited the scope of the trial issues. The court further noted that the proof of valuation offered at trial must be limited to the valuation method(s) described in the appraisal report:

Where, as here, “the highest and best use is the one the property presently serves and that use is income-producing, then the capitalization of income is a proper method of valuation” … . In our view, the stricken portion of respondents’ appraisal report, although titled “investment valuation,” applied an income capitalization approach using the standard income capitalization formula, i.e., value equals net income divided by a capitalization rate … , and applied factors that, according to respondents’ appraiser, accurately reflect the property’s value and would make the property more appealing to prospective purchasers. To the extent that petitioner contends that certain factors considered by respondents’ appraiser in valuing the property do not accurately reflect market value, “[t]he fact that some aspects of the valuation methodology [of respondents’ appraiser] may be subject to question goes to the weight to be accorded the appraisal[],” not its admissibility … . … Matter of Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Auth. v Stensrud, 2019 NY Slip Op 04612, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

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