You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence in this dog bite case was properly denied. Infant plaintiff was bitten in the face when the dog jumped and attempted to bite the food in plaintiff’s hand. The jury found that the dog did not have vicious propensities. The evidence that the dog only became excited and rambunctious around food supported the jury’s verdict:

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when ” the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . The discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict must be exercised with considerable caution, “for in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict”… . Additionally, in making this determination courts should keep in mind that “[i]t is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that ” the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities'” … . This knowledge may be established with evidence of “prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice” … . However, “normal canine behavior” does not establish vicious propensities, and “rambunctious behavior will show awareness of a vicious propensity only if it is the very behavior that resulted in [a] plaintiff’s injury” … . M.B. v Hanson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00106, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

JUDGE WAS NOT PRESENTED WITH ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no basis for the judge’s, sua sponte, dismissal of the complaint in this foreclosure action:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … .

Administrative Order 548/10, issued by the Chief Administrative Judge on October 20, 2010, and amended by Administrative Order 431-11 [requiring confirmation of the accuracy of the execution and notarization of an affidavit of merit] … , was not in effect at the time the order of reference and the judgment of foreclosure and sale were issued …  . In this case, no substantial right of the defendant would have been affected by the substitution of a new affidavit of merit … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . LaSalle Bank N.A. v Lopez, 2019 NY Slip Op 00104, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY AFTER RECEIVING A NOTE INDICATING THAT A JUROR COULD NOT CONTINUE, INSTEAD THE JUDGE REPLACED THE JUROR WITH AN ALTERNATE WITHOUT AN INQUIRY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined the trial court in this medical malpractice action should have conducted an inquiry before replacing a juror with an alternate:

In 2013, CPLR 4106 was amended to provide that a trial court may discharge a regular juror and replace that juror with an alternate juror, even after deliberations have begun, if the juror has “become[ ] unable to perform the duties of a juror” (CPLR 4106 … ). In determining whether discharge and replacement of a juror is appropriate, a trial court must, after receiving notice that a juror may not be able to perform his or her duty, make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine whether the juror should be discharged and replaced with an alternate juror … .

In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court received a note during deliberations that “a juror cannot come to a fair decision due to emotional distress.” The court, however, refused to conduct any inquiry as to the nature of the juror’s difficulty, and refused even to speak to the juror individually. Instead, over objection, it excused the juror and seated an alternate. The court’s failure to make adequate inquiry was error, requiring a new trial … . Garbie v Ahmad, 2019 NY Slip Op 00098, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY PARTY JUSTIFIED DISMISSAL AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding, rather than joinder of the condominium board as a necessary party, was the proper remedy. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection had denied petitioner’s request to order removal of backflow prevention devices installed in the condominium unit:

Petitioner’s failure to join as a party the condominium board, which installed the backflow prevention device in dispute, constitutes a failure to join a necessary party (see Matter of Ferrando v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 12 AD3d 287, 288 [1st Dept 2004]). Since the applicable statutory period has expired and the condominium board can no longer be joined, and proceeding in its absence would potentially be highly prejudicial to it, the proper remedy is dismissal of the proceeding rather than joinder of the condominium board (id.; see also CPLR 1001, 1003). Matter of Stephen & Mark 53 Assoc. LLC v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 00072 [168 AD3d 440], First Dept 1-8-19

 

,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE O

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO RECOMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER IT WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING AND ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it had standing to bring this foreclosure action. Therefore plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted. The court noted that Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff an additional six months to commence another action (CPLR 205 (a))  after the first was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c):

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate that it has standing as the assignee of the mortgage from MERS. By its express terms, the initial written assignment from MERS only assigns the mortgage, not the note, and no proof was submitted establishing that MERS was ever conferred with the requisite authority to assign the note… . Moreover, contrary to Supreme Court’s holding, this Court has held that merely attaching the note with a blank indorsement to the complaint is not sufficient for plaintiff to meet its prima facie burden on the issue of standing or to prove plaintiff’s possessory interest in the note; proof of actual possession is required … ….

Plaintiff similarly failed to establish its standing by demonstrating that it had physical possession of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted, among other things, a copy of its complaint, the mortgage, the unpaid note (indorsed in blank), the relevant assignments of the mortgage and proof of defendants’ default. Plaintiff also tendered the affidavit of the authorized officer for Caliber Home Loans, Inc., the mortgage loan servicing agent and attorney-in-fact for plaintiff … . The affidavit of the authorized officer indicates the source of her knowledge to be her “review of the electronic records of Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” regarding defendants’ delinquent account, which includes, among other things, “electronic images of the note and electronic records maintained by Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” Other than alleging that she reviewed these electronic records, the authorized officer’s affidavit fails to provide any indication that she actually examined the original note, nor did it provide any details with regard to whether plaintiff ever obtained possession thereof and, if so, how and when it came into its possession … . Moreover, the complaint is equivocal and alleges in the alternative that plaintiff is “the current owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note, or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.” Such language is insufficient to establish that plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time it commenced this action … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Moomey-Stevens, 2019 NY Slip Op 00016, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

THE STATE ACTION ON A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEBT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON CLAIM PRECLUSION OR RES JUDICATA GROUNDS BASED UPON THE DISMISSAL OF A FEDERAL ACTION AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE STATE ACTION, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE STATE ACTION MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INTERVENE OR ASSIGN THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court determined that the dismissal of action in federal court to recover on a multi-million dollar notes did not preclude the state action on claim preclusion (res judicata) grounds. The opinion is fact-specific and too complicated to be fairly summarized here:

Supreme Court dismissed the action with prejudice on claim preclusion grounds, and denied the motion to amend as moot. The court found that plaintiffs herein should have intervened in the federal action, or assigned their claims to [the defendant in the federal action,] Varshavsky. The failure to do so was a “blatant misuse of the federal forum,” which resulted in a “stunning” amount of discovery, and several motions, which Supreme Court found were wasted because plaintiffs herein failed to use the federal forum to resolve all “claims aris[ing] from a common nucleus of operative facts.” * * *

The doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar plaintiffs’ claims herein. Varshavsky, the sole defendant in the federal action, was not himself the creditor of the subject loans and had no standing to assert a counterclaim for recovery of plaintiffs’ loans in that action. Plaintiffs’ putative rights to intervene as party defendants in the federal action, or to assign their claims to Varshavsky, are far from clear. Either option, intervention or assignment, might have been rejected by the federal court as an attempt to evade the strictures of diversity jurisdiction. Apart from the efficacy of these options, even if intervention or assignment were possible, there is no legal doctrine that would compel plaintiffs herein to litigate in the federal action. In short, plaintiffs herein, as nonparties to the federal litigation, are not precluded from asserting claims that no party in the federal litigation had standing to pursue. To hold otherwise would mean that a debtor may, by suing a creditor’s principal or associate, require the creditor to participate in the action or have its claims precluded. Avilon Auto. Group v Leontiev, 2019 NY Slip Op 00058, First Dept 1-3-19

 

,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

, ,

THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine (CPLR 203(f)) allowed plaintiff, Polanco, to serve a supplemental summons and complaint against the employer of Elias-Tejada, the driver of the car in which plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger. The Elias-Tejada car stalled on a bridge and was struck from behind. Plaintiff (Polanco) did not learn until after the action was started that Elias-Tejada was paid by his employer, Fairway, to transport the other occupants of his car, all Fairway employees, to work. Plaintiff (Polanco) sought to add Fairway as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory and the First Department held he could do so:

The claims that Polanco seeks to assert against Fairway arise out of the same occurrence as alleged in the complaint against Elias-Tejada [and the other two defendant drivers]. … [W]e find that Polanco also satisfied the second condition, because under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his or her employment … . Based on Elias-Tejada’s employer/employee relationship with Fairway, they are united in interest because a judgment against one of them will similarly affect the other … . … [T]he Fairway defendants can, therefore, be charged as having notice of Polanco’s potential claims against them, based upon the claims asserted against Elias-Tejada in the original summons and complaint … . …

… Only later, after depositions were held, including those of a key Fairway employee and Elias-Tejada, did [plaintiff] learn that Fairway compensated Elias-Tejada for hosting the car pool and that this travel arrangement was condoned, if not actually implemented and encouraged, by Fairway’s human resources department because Fairway reimbursed him for tolls and mileage. Ramirez v Elias-Tejada, 2019 NY Slip Op 00021, First Dept  1-3-19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because defendants never interposed an answer. The Third Department further determined defendants’ motion for permission to serve a late answer was properly denied. The matter was remitted to afford plaintiff the opportunity to make a late motion for a default judgment. The underlying matter is plaintiff’s action to recover the cost of cleaning up a highway accident involving defendants’ truck:

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment because defendants never filed an answer and, thus, issue was not joined, a prerequisite that is “strictly adhered to”… . Further, summary judgment was not granted here pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) … . Even if defendants are deemed to have appeared by filing a notice of removal of the action to federal court or by other conduct (see CPLR 320 [a]), they did not file a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3011) and, consequently, plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment … . …

Although Supreme Court possessed discretion to permit late service of an answer “upon a showing of [a] reasonable excuse for [the] delay or default” (CPLR 3012 [d]…), the reasonableness of the excuse “is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors”… . … We discern no basis for finding that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion, given the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay … . Gerster’s Triple E. Towing & Repair, Inc. v Pishon Trucking, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08979, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

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