You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the sanction imposed for plaintiff’s failure to turn over audio files and transcripts she was apparently relying upon to prove employment discrimination should not have gone beyond the terms of the conditional order of preclusion:

“A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide certain discovery by a date certain, or face the sanctions specified in the order” … . ” With this conditioning, the court relieves itself of the unrewarding inquiry into whether a party’s resistance was willful'” … . “When a plaintiff fails to timely comply with a conditional order of preclusion, the conditional order becomes absolute” … .

… [W]here, as here, a conditional order of preclusion specifies a penalty for the failure to comply, absent a change in circumstances, it is inappropriate for the court to impose a harsher penalty … . The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in barring the plaintiff from offering any evidence for any claim premised on the introduction of or which relies on the audio files the plaintiff failed to produce. Instead, the appropriate sanction was the one set forth in the conditional order of preclusion, which precluded the plaintiff from using the audio files and corresponding transcripts at trial unless she produced these items by a date certain, which she failed to do. Felice v Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02067, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the city in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No such motion was before the court:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the City, which did not move for such relief. “A court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Since no party made any motion with respect to the plaintiff’s direct cause of action against the City contained in the amended complaint, the court should not have granted relief with respect to that cause of action … . Cerbone v Lauriano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02056, Second Dept 3-20-29

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted, despite defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State:

There was no evidence that the defendant received actual notice of the summons delivered to the Secretary of State, which does not constitute personal delivery, in time to defend this action ). Although the defendant did not explain why it failed to update its address with the Secretary of State, “there is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay” … . Furthermore, there is no basis in the record to conclude that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid service, especially since the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defendant’s Westchester County… business address at least two months before the summons and complaint were filed in this action and, thus, could have attempted to serve the defendant personally pursuant to CPLR 311 … . Nor is there any evidence that the defendant was placed on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Berardi Stone Setting, Inc. v Stonewall Contr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

AUDIT TRAIL, I.E., METADATA SHOWING WHO ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS, WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE ACCESSED, AND ANY CHANGES TO THE RECORDS, WAS DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT AFTER SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the so-called “audit trail,” which indicates who accessed plaintiff’s medical records, where and when they were accessed and any changes made to the records (metadata), was discoverable in this medical malpractice action. The complaint alleged failure to properly treat plaintiff after surgery which led to infection and amputation:

The plaintiffs demonstrated, and Wyckoff [medical center] does not dispute, that an audit trail generally shows the sequence of events related to the use of a patient’s electronic medical records; i.e., who accessed the records, when and where the records were accessed, and changes made to the records … . Hospitals are required to maintain audit trails under federal and state law (see 45 CFR 164.312[b]; 10 NYCRR 405.10[c][4][v]). As argued by the plaintiffs, the requested audit trail was relevant to the allegations of negligence that underlie this medical malpractice action in that the audit trail would provide, or was reasonably likely to lead to, information bearing directly on the post-operative care that was provided to the injured plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ request was limited to the period immediately following the injured plaintiff’s surgery. The plaintiffs further demonstrated that such disclosure was also needed to assist preparation for trial by enabling their counsel to ascertain whether the patient records that were eventually provided to them were complete and unaltered … .

In response to the plaintiffs’ threshold showing, Wyckoff failed to demonstrate that the requested disclosure was improper or otherwise unwarranted. Although Wyckoff argued that the audit trail may contain information that would not be useful to the plaintiffs, it did not dispute that the audit trail would nevertheless contain information pertaining to the medical care that it provided to the injured plaintiff in the wake of his foot surgery. Vargas v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED OR FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) or for neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216:

It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … . Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . Within one year after the defendant’s default, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321[1]) and, thus, did not abandon this action … . …

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 on the ground of lack of prosecution. While CPLR 3216 authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for neglect to prosecute, joinder of issue and service of a 90-day notice are conditions precedent to a dismissal under that statute  … . Here, dismissal was improper, as issue was never joined in the action … . US Bank, N.A. v Picone, 2019 NY Slip Op 02141, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , , , ,

NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, in a matter of first impression, determined that the notes taken by an observer at an independent medical exam (IME) of plaintiff by defendants’ doctor are protected by the privilege afforded materials prepared for litigation. The observer was hired by plaintiff’s attorney and was deemed to be acting as an agent of the attorney:

The IME observer, however, is an agent of the plaintiff’s attorney. Consequently, the requested notes and materials constitute materials prepared for trial, bringing them within the conditional or qualified privilege protections of CPLR 3101(d)(2). Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation and preparation for trial may be obtained only upon a showing that the requesting party has a “substantial need” for them in the preparation of the case and that without “undue hardship” the requesting party is unable to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means (CPLR 3101[d][2] …).

The IME observer was hired to assist plaintiff’s attorney in advancing the litigation and preparing for trial … . Although present, she was not involved in the doctor’s examination of the plaintiff. Her function was to serve as the attorney’s “eyes and ears,” observing what occurred during the IME, and then reporting that information back to plaintiff’s attorney.

Defendants have not shown, in response, any “substantial need” for the IME observer’s notes, etc., or why they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the “substantial equivalent” of the materials by other means … . Key to this analysis is that the defendants’ doctor conducted plaintiff’s examination and can provide defendants with any information concerning what generally occurred and what he did at the IME. Markel v Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02049, First Dept 3-19-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT’S PHARMACY RECORDS IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE COLLISION CASE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE DISCLOSED SUBJECT TO TIME LIMITATIONS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ decedent’s pharmacy records were not protected by physician-patient privilege and must be disclosed to plaintiff, subject to certain limitations and an in camera review. Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle collided with a vehicle driven by decedent:

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that decedent’s pharmacy records are not protected by the physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a] … ) and are “material and necessary” to the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a] …). Nevertheless, we conclude that plaintiffs’ request for records “before and after” the collision was overly broad, and we therefore limit disclosure of the pharmacy records to the six-month period immediately preceding the collision. Furthermore, those records “should not be released to [plaintiffs] until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted”… . … [D]efendants are directed to submit to the court, for the six-month period  immediately preceding the accident, pharmacy records identifying the medications prescribed to decedent and the prescribed dosages of those medications, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of those records. Carr-Hoagland v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02000, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW OF A ONE-DAY SQUIRREL-HUNTING FUND-RAISING EVENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner did not have standing to seek a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of one-day squirrel hunting event put on by a volunteer fire department:

Prior to 2017, the one-day hunting contests at issue had been held annually by respondent as fundraisers, with prizes having been awarded based on the weight of squirrels turned in at the end of each contest. Petitioner resides approximately 50 miles from the area where respondent has held the hunting contests. She alleges an environmental injury-in-fact based on her fondness for squirrels, the impact that the hunting contests may have on the “local ecology,” and the possibility that the contests may result in the killing of squirrels that she sees near her residence. Petitioner contends that she therefore has standing to bring this proceeding/action. We reject that contention.

Standing is “a threshold requirement for a [party] seeking to challenge governmental action” … . The burden of establishing standing to challenge an action pursuant to SEQRA is “on the party seeking review” … . “The existence of an injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated—ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action” … . In addition, to establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must establish, inter alia, “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large”… .

Here, we conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of establishing an environmental [*2]injury-in-fact. Although petitioner may have alleged some environmental harm, she has alleged, at most, an injury that is “no different in either kind or degree from that suffered by the general public” . Petitioner also has not established that the hunting activities at issue have affected the wildlife where she resides, nor has she established that she has used, or even visited, the area where the hunting contests have been conducted … . Matter of Sheive v Holley Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01982

 

IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that the declaratory judgment action was not subject to the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 actions. The plaintiff and defendant are private parties who own land on opposite sides of Cady Road. A portion of the Cady Road was declared discontinued and defendant allegedly erected a barrier. Plaintiff’s action sought Article 78 relief against a town official as well as a declaratory judgment. Because no Article 78 relief was possible with respect to the private defendant who allegedly erected the barrier, the shorter statute of limitations did not apply to the declaratory judgment action concerning the rights of the private parties:

Relief under CPLR article 78 is available only against a limited subset of official and institutional parties. It follows that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to article 78 proceedings cannot be imported to bar a declaratory judgment action against a private individual not subject to article 78. * * *

… [D]efendant is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a), i.e., he is not a “court, tribunal, board, corporation, [or] officer,” and it is well established that article 78 relief is available only against a “body or officer” as defined by section 7802 (a) … . …

… [T]he true gravamen of its declaratory claims “requires a judicial determination as to the rights of the parties to use Cady Road [which] would [thereby] settle the rights of private [parties],” i.e., plaintiff and defendant. And it is well established that such a contest between the “rights of private [parties]” cannot be adjudicated in an article 78 proceeding … . …

… [B]ecause an article 78 proceeding was not a “proper vehicle” for plaintiff’s private claims for declaratory relief against defendant, the four-month “limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 [1] is not applicable to [such claims] and the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1) applies instead” … . Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01966, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) defendants’ oral application requesting a jury trial, made one day late, should have been granted, and (2) the appeal from a final judgment allows an appeal of the denial of the late application for a jury trial, even though no formal motion on notice was made. The dissent argued the denial was not appealable because there was no formal motion on notice:

An appeal from a final judgment “brings up for review . . . any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The parties do not dispute that the order denying defendants’ application for leave to file a late demand for a jury trial necessarily affected the final judgment. …

… [T]he State Constitution provides for a right to a jury trial in civil cases (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). Although that right may be waived through the failure to demand it in a timely fashion (see CPLR 4102 [a]), the court “may relieve a party from the effect” of such waiver “if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result” (CPLR 4102 [e]). While “[t]he decision . . . to relieve a party from failing to timely comply with CPLR 4102 (a) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … , we conclude that the court’s denial of defendants’ application was an abuse of discretion. Braun v Cesareo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01962, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

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