You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined that defendant’s affirmation did not conform to New York law and therefore was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit of service. Defendant’s made his affirmation in front of a notary in Israel, but the affirmation did not indicate it was made under penalty of perjury:

“[A]ny person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so,” but such affirmation “must be made before a notary public or other authorized official,” and the affirmant must “be answerable for the crime of perjury should he make a false statement” … . Furthermore, an affirmation from a person physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States must comply with the additional formalities of CPLR 2309 (c), and must, in substance, affirm that the statement is true under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York (see CPLR 2106 [b]). While the defendant’s identity was verified by an authorized official in Israel acting in the capacity of a notary, the affirmation itself failed to indicate that the statements made therein were true under the penalties of perjury. Therefore, the affirmation was without probative value … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Langner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00492 [168 AD3d 1021], Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this divorce action, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion … . “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court”… . The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion and cross motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a determination of the motion and cross motion on the merits … . Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the zoning code provisions enacted by the village board of trustees, which concerned the maximum floor space and coverage on residential lots, were consistent with the village’s comprehensive plan and properly enacted. The Second Department further found that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) were met. However, the portions of the petition which sought declaratory relief and related damages should not have been summarily dismissed along with the portions which sought Article 78 relief because no demand for dismissal of the declaratory relief portions had been made:

… [I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, which sought declaratory relief and damages not in the nature of CPLR article 78 relief, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, dismissed those causes of action. “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Bonacker Prop., LLC v Village of E. Hampton Bd. of Trustees, 2019 NY Slip Op 00432, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed because plaintiff’s decedent was not involved in construction work when a 2500 pound bridge form fell on him. The court further found that plaintiff had made a sufficient showing that long-arm jurisdiction may apply to Spillman, the manufacturer of the bridge form, to allow discovery:

In support of her claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), plaintiff alleged that, at the time that decedent sustained the fatal injuries, he had been unloading a bridge form that had been delivered to the manufacturing facility operated by LHV so that it could be used in the manufacture and fabrication of construction materials that would be eventually used during unspecified construction at an unspecified construction site. As Supreme Court aptly concluded, these allegations “do not support any contention that the work being done at the time of the incident was, in any manner, an integral part of an ongoing construction contract or was being performed at an ancillary site, incidental to and necessitated by such construction project, where the materials involved were being readied for use in connection with a covered activity,” so as to bring it within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

For the same reasons, plaintiff’s factual allegations did not support a conclusion that decedent’s injuries occurred in an “area[] in which construction, excavation or demolition work [was] being performed” (Labor Law § 241 [b]) and, thus, Supreme Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was proper … . …

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we agree with Supreme Court that the foregoing provided the “sufficient start” required to warrant further discovery on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be properly exercised over Spillman under CPLR 302 (a) (3), while also comporting with federal due process requirements … . Archer-Vail v LHV Precast Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00341, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES STEMMING FROM A BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INSURER’S DELAY IN PAYING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING, WHICH SHIFTED WHEN WORK WAS DONE ON AN ADJOINING BUILDING, RESULTED IN AN ARRAY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged consequential damages stemming from the insurer’s alleged delay in paying a claim for damage to plaintiff’s building which shifted after work on an adjoining building. The First Department noted that there is no heightened pleading requirement for consequential damages stemming from a breach of contract. The consequential damages aspect of the  complaint should not have been dismissed:

The complaint alleges that rather than pay the claim, defendant has made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands throughout the three year period since the property damage occurred. Plaintiff contends that this was a tactic by defendant to make the claim so expensive to pursue that plaintiff would abandon it altogether. Plaintiff contends defendant’s investigatory process has taken so long and become so attenuated that the structural damage to the building has worsened. Among the consequential damages alleged are engineering costs, painting, repairs, monitoring equipment, and moisture abatement to address water intrusion, loss of rents, and other expenses attributable to mitigating further damage to the property. …

A plaintiff may sue for consequential damages resulting from an insurer’s failure to provide coverage if such damages (“risks”) were foreseen or should have been foreseen when the contract was made … . … [T]he inquiry is not whether plaintiff will be able to establish its claim, but whether plaintiff has stated a claim.

Here, plaintiff’s allegations meet the pleading requirements of the CPLR with respect to consequential damages, whether in connection with the first cause of action or the second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of an insurance contract … . … [T]here is no heightened pleading standard requiring plaintiff to explain or describe how and why the “specific” categories of consequential damages alleged were reasonable and forseeable at the time of contract. There is no heightened pleading requirement for consequential damages …. Furthermore, an insured’s obligation to “take all reasonable steps to protect the covered property from further damage by a covered cause of loss” supports plaintiff’s allegation that some or all the alleged damages were forseeable … . D.K. Prop., Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2019 NY Slip Op 00347, First Dept 1-21-19

 

, ,

TIMELINESS OF A MOTION SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION IS MEASURED BY THE INITIAL MOTION, NOT A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RENEW AFTER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS WERE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PLAINTIFFS FROM RENEWING THE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER PAYROLL DATA TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should not have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of payroll data should have been granted. Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their Labor Law underpayment claims. Their initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss alleging the plaintiffs did not timely move to renew their motion for class certification. The Second Department held that it is the initial motion for class certification which determines timeliness, not any subsequent motion to renew. The court further held that defendants were effectively preventing plaintiffs from renewing their motion by refusing to turn over the payroll data:

The time limitation to file a motion for class certification “applies only to a motion for the initial certification of the class” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification was timely made. Moreover, while the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion, the defendants refused to provide material sought by the plaintiffs which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether the matter may proceed as a class action … . The items of discovery sought are material and necessary to the determination of whether the plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”… , and the evaluation of whether prosecuting or defending separate actions would be impractical or inefficient and any “difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action” … . Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine did not allow plaintiff in this medical malpractice action to sue an anesthesiology group (Atanitic) as a defendant after the statute of limitations had been expired. Atlantic had been added as a defendant after the statute ran when it was discovered that a defendant anesthesiolgist, DeBrady, worked for Atlantic at the time the procedure was performed on plaintiff. DeBrady’s motion for summary judgment was not opposed and was granted. But Supreme Court held that Atlantic could remain a defendant because of the potential liability of another employee of Atlantic, non-party Cantalupo. The Second Department held that Atlantic’s liability was based solely upon respondeat superior as the employer of DeBrady, who was no longer a defendant. The court noted that, although the complaint named a “John Doe, MD,” Cantalupo could not be substituted as a party because plaintiff never moved to substitute Cantalupo and the requirements of CPLR 1024 were not met:

In order for a cause of action asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date a claim was asserted against another defendant, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) the [cause of action] arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (… see CPLR 203[b]). In malpractice actions, such as this one, “the defendants are considered united in interest when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other”… . The second prong of the relation-back doctrine requires unity of interest with a party in the action … .

Since Atlantic was made a party to the action after the expiration of the statute of limitations based solely on its unity of interest with DeBrady, who was timely served, Atlantic’s liability in the instant action cannot be predicated upon vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of other employees of Atlantic who are not parties to this action, including nonparty Cantalupo. Accordingly, Atlantic demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, upon dismissal of the action as against DeBrady … . Ferrara v Jerome Zisfein, 2019 NY Slip Op 00096, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case in the interest of justice. The defendants (Kirschen, Roberts and Winthrop) were involved in emergency treatment of the plaintiff for back pain. Subsequently surgery was performed by two additional (non-party) doctors (Obedian and Sonstein) to deal with an abscess on plaintiff’s spine. At trial the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s experts about the possible negligence of the surgeons, which was deemed reversible error. The Second Department further held plaintiff’s experts should not have been allowed to testify as experts in emergency medicine because no specialized knowledge of emergency medicine was demonstrated:

” A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise'”… . In considering such a motion, “[t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … . …

… [T]the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were capable of any reasonable or practicable division of allocation among Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop, and Obedian and Sonstein … . Thus, if, as Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop propose, a jury were to find that Obedian and Sonstein departed from accepted medical practice and that this departure was a substantial factor in depriving the plaintiff of a substantial chance for an improved outcome, Obedian and Sonstein could be found at fault together with Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of Obedian and Sonstein was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop from cross-examining two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on this issue deprived Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop of “substantial justice” … . Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is.. 2019 NY Slip Op 00093, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BY MERELY POINTING OUT ALLEGED GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant did not make a prima facie showing that plaintiff bank lacked standing in this foreclosure action, as opposed to pointing to alleged gaps in plaintiff’s case. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“On a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied'” … . “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” … . Here, the defendant merely pointed to alleged gaps in the plaintiff’s case and failed to meet her burden of establishing, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law … . Cenlar FSB v Lanzbom, 2019 NY Slip Op 00092, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND THE INJURY TO BE PERMANENT BUT DID NOT AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING TOO LOW, MAY HAVE BEEN AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMPROMISE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting a new trial, determined the jury’s damages verdict in this rear-end collision, traffic accident case should have been granted. The jury found that plaintiff suffered a permanent injury but did not award plaintiff with damages for future pain and suffering. The Second Department further determined the $12,500 verdict for past pain and suffering was too low:

A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence… . Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, as the verdict with respect to those damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the jury’s finding that his injuries were permanent in nature and were proximately caused by the accident … . Furthermore, whereas the jury was presented with conflicting evidence and theories as to the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inexplicably low, it appears that the verdict with respect to damages for past pain and suffering may have been the result of an impermissible compromise … . Avissato v McDaniel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00084, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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