You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice and should not have been dismissed. The court explained that whether the action would survive a subsequent summary judgment motion is not to be considered. The complaint alleged plaintiff was injured by a pizza delivery driver and the attorneys failed to sue the employer (Dominos):

“On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Where a court considers evidentiary material in determining a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), but does not convert the motion into one for summary judgment, the criterion becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless the movant shows that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and no significant dispute exists regarding the alleged fact, the complaint shall not be dismissed” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . …

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice … . The evidentiary submissions did not establish that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding it … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff was entitled to commence this legal malpractice action even though the underlying personal injury action was still pending, as the legal malpractice action accrued, at the latest, in November 2014 … . Lopez v Lozner & Mastropietro, P.C. , 2018 NY Slip Op 08017, Second Dept 11-21-18

ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTIONS TO DISMISS,  COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS COMPLAINT, MOTION TO (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal must be dismissed for three reasons: the stipulation appealed from was entered into by consent, the appeal is not from an appealable order under CPLR 5701, and the matters raised on appeal could have been raised on a prior appeal. The court noted that counsel should have informed the court of the prior dismissed appeal:

We now dismiss the instant appeal for the following three reasons. First, defendant is not aggrieved by the “Stipulation and Order” on appeal because, as its title reflects, it constitutes an order entered on consent. As such, defendant “may not appeal from it” (…  see CPLR 5511…). The fact that defendant is aggrieved by the prior summary judgment order is of no moment because the “Stipulation and Order” is not a final order or judgment, and it thus does not bring up for review that prior order … .

Second, the appeal must be dismissed because the paper from which defendant purports to appeal is not an appealable order under CPLR 5701 (a) (2), which authorizes an appeal as of right from certain specified orders “where the motion it decided was made upon notice.” That provision is inapplicable here because the “Stipulation and Order” on appeal did not decide a motion, much less a motion made on notice … .

Third, it is well established that “[a]n appeal that has been dismissed for failure to prosecute bars, on the merits, a subsequent appeal as to all questions that could have been raised on the earlier appeal had it been perfected” … . Defendant’s substantive contentions on the instant appeal could have been raised on the prior appeal, had it been perfected. Thus, dismissal of the instant appeal is also warranted on that ground … . …

Finally, given the parties’ failure to inform us of the prior dismissed appeal in their appellate briefs, we must remind counsel that “attorneys for litigants in [an appellate] court have an obligation to keep the court informed of all . . . matters pertinent to the disposition of a pending appeal and cannot, by agreement between them, . . . predetermine the scope of [its] review”  … . Dumond v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07853, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

APPEALS (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/cIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 5701  (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT)

, ,

MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the criteria for prior restraint of speech were not met in this action to impose a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting the publishing of accusations against plaintiff and offensive images on defendants’ website:

Plaintiff, a law professor, sat on the appellate panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) that affirmed the lifetime ban imposed on two stockbrokers, nonparties Talman Harris and William Scholander. Defendants allegedly control a website known as TheBlot, a tabloid-style platform that has published a substantial quantity of material attacking FINRA’s ban of Harris and Scholander and the FINRA personnel, including plaintiff, who were involved in adjudicating that case. The attacks on plaintiff have included — in addition to name-calling, ridicule and various scurrilous accusations — juxtapositions of plaintiff’s likeness to graphic images of the lynching of African Americans, and statements that the banning of Harris, who is African American, constituted a “lynching.”

In this action, plaintiff, who is also African American, seeks, as here relevant, an injunction against the posting on TheBlot of material attacking or libeling him. In this regard, he argues that the lynching images posted alongside photographs of him on TheBlot should be understood as a threat of violence against himself. …

… [T]he preliminary injunction can be affirmed only if it enjoins a “true threat” against plaintiff … . We find, however, that the speech at issue, as offensive as it is, cannot reasonably be construed as truly threatening or inciting violence against plaintiff. Rather, the lynching imagery at issue was plainly intended to draw a grotesque analogy between lynching and FINRA’s banning of Harris, who is an African American (and is identified as such in the posts) … . While this analogy is incendiary and highly inappropriate, plaintiff has not established that any reasonable viewer would have understood the posts as threatening or calling for violence against him. Moreover, even if the posts could reasonably be construed as advocating unlawful conduct, plaintiff has not established that any “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” … . Brummer v Wey, 2018 NY Slip Op 07843, First Dept 11-15-18

DEFAMATION (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT, MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (PRIOR RESTRAINT, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIOR RESTRAINT (FREE SPEECH, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a question of fact whether the injured plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor (and therefore a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy) must ruled on by the Workers’ Compensation Board before the courts can get involved:

Where the availability of workers’ compensation benefits “hinges upon questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the parties may not choose the courts as the forum for resolution of the questions, but must look to the Workers’ Compensation Board for such determinations”… . “The question of whether a particular person is an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board” … . Here, in light of the affidavit of the defendant’s employee, who stated that he trained the plaintiff, supervised the plaintiff closely, set the plaintiff’s hours on the days the plaintiff worked, and directed the plaintiff’s work, there is a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the defendant’s employee on the date of the accident. Accordingly, because “there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff has a valid negligence cause of action against the defendant,” “[t]hat determination must be made in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board …”. Findlater v Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07702, Second Dept 11-14-18

WORKERS” COMPENSATION (WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have ordered the payment of attorney’s fees for frivolous conduct without allowing the affected party to be heard on the question:

“The court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, . . . costs in the form of reimbursement for . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). An award of costs or the imposition of sanctions “may be made either upon motion in compliance with CPLR 2214 or 2215 or upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). Here, the respondents did not cross-move for costs or sanctions in compliance with CPLR 2215, the respondents’ opposition to the petitioner’s motion for leave to renew did not clearly articulate a request for costs or sanctions, and there is no indication in this record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue … . Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding costs to the respondents in the form of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,500 … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07724, Second Dept 11-14-18

JUDGES (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, ATTORNEY’S FEES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214, 2215 (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this subway slip and fall case should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence. The trial evidence indicated comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff. Plaintiff stepped into a gap between the train and the platform, just after she had stepped over it. In addition, plaintiff had used that same train for a year:

The jury found that the NYCTA [New York City Transit Authority] was negligent, that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident, and that the injured plaintiff was not negligent. The NYCTA moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. The Supreme Court denied the motion. Insofar as relevant on this appeal, a judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the injured plaintiff and against the NYCTA.

“A jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when the evidence so preponderates 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 jury’s finding that the NYCTA was solely at fault for the accident was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The evidence at trial demonstrated that, just prior to the accident, the injured plaintiff had exited the B train and stepped over the subject gap, without incident, onto the platform of the Prospect Park station. She then stepped into that same gap while attempting to reenter the train moments later. Additionally, the injured plaintiff had used the Prospect Park station on previous occasions. She testified that, for approximately one year, she had been taking the B train to the Prospect Park station where she would transfer to the shuttle train if it was at the station when she arrived. Under the circumstances, the jury’s verdict on the issue of liability completely absolving the injured plaintiff of comparative fault was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Stallings-Wiggins v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 07774, Second Dept 11-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SET ASIDE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (NEGLIGENCE, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that there is no specific statute of limitations for a declaratory judgment action the applicable limitations period is determined by the nature of the underlying action, here conversion and fraud:

“Actions for declaratory judgments are not ascribed a certain limitations period. The nature of the relief sought in a declaratory judgment action dictates the applicable limitations period. Thus, if the action for a declaratory judgment could have been brought in a different form asserting a particular cause of action, the limitations period applicable to the particular cause of action will apply” … . Here, the cause of action for declaratory relief could have been brought, and essentially was brought, in the form of the causes of action to recover damages for conversion and fraud. Since this action was commenced more than three years from the date the alleged conversion took place, and more than six years from the commission of the alleged fraud or two years from the discovery of the alleged fraud, the declaratory judgment cause of action is time-barred … . Schulman v Schulman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07770, Second Dept 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. Defendant attorney (Weiss) were hired by plaintiff to bring a personal injury action. The legal malpractice action was filed more than three years after the statute had run on the personal injury case:

The complaint alleged that after the plaintiff executed the retainer agreement, Weis informed the plaintiff that the defendants were going to commence a personal injury and products liability action against the owner of the table saw, the manufacturer of the table saw, and ” everyone that touched the table saw'” until it was sold to the homeowner; the personal injury claim was ” worth millions of dollars'”; and it “would take up to seven (7) years to resolve” the personal injury claim. The complaint further alleged that from approximately September 2008 to late 2008, the plaintiff contacted Weis approximately every two weeks to inquire about the status of the personal injury claim. Weis allegedly advised the plaintiff to ” put the case on the back burner as it was going to take a long time to resolve,'” and that Weis ” had the plaintiff’s contact information,'” and ” if he needed the plaintiff, he would contact him.'” The complaint also alleged that between approximately late 2008 and July 2014, the plaintiff called the defendants’ law office every six to eight months to check on the status of the personal injury claim and spoke to a secretary each time. The complaint alleged that on July 29, 2014, the plaintiff went to the defendants’ office and asked Weis “when his court date was” because “it was getting close” to the seven-year “anniversary of the accident.” Weis allegedly told the plaintiff that he had ” no case,'” and that Weis thought the plaintiff had ” disappeared.'” …

… [T]the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until July 29, 2014, when Weis allegedly informed the plaintiff that he did not have a case. Upon entering into the retainer agreement, the plaintiff and the defendants reasonably intended that their professional relationship of trust and confidence, focused upon the personal injury claim, would continue. The complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiff was “left with the reasonable impression” that the defendants were, “in fact, actively addressing [his] legal needs” until that date. The allegations in the complaint failed to reflect, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the defendants had withdrawn from representation on the personal injury claim more than three years before the legal malpractice action was commenced … . Schrull v Weis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07769, Second Dept 11-14-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the NYC Department of Health to enforce laws preventing animal cruelty was properly denied. The writ concerned the slaughter of chickens as part of the religious practice of Kaporos prior to Yom Kippur:

A writ of mandamus “is an extraordinary remedy’ that is available only in limited circumstances'” … . Such remedy will lie “only to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law” … . While mandamus to compel ” is an appropriate remedy to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty, it is well settled that it will not be awarded to compel an act in respect to which [a public] officer may exercise judgment or discretion'”… . Discretionary acts ” involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'”. Further, mandamus may only issue to compel a public officer to execute a legal duty; it may not ” direct how [the officer] shall perform that duty'” … .

Enforcement of the laws cited by plaintiffs would involve some exercise of discretion (see Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, 545 US 748, 760-761 [2005]). Moreover, plaintiffs do not seek to compel the performance of ministerial duties but, rather, seek to compel a particular outcome. Accordingly, mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for the relief sought … .  Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 07694, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/MANDAMUS (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/MUNICIPAL LAW (MANDAMUS, (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/RELIGION  (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/ANIMAL LAW  (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))

, , ,

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer should not have been allowed to amend its answer to assert a release from liability for plaintiff’s injury based on plaintiff’s signing a “Volunteer Agreement.” The Volunteer Agreement purported to release the employer from any liability for injury to plaintiff on the job. Plaintiff was struck by a forklift operated by defendant’s employee. The release violated public policy:

While leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …), here, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit … . New York courts have long found agreements between an employer and an employee attempting to exonerate the employer from liability for future negligence whether of itself or its employees or limiting its liability on account of such negligence void as against public policy … .

As observed by the Court of Appeals more than a century ago, “[t]he state is interested in the conservation of the lives and of the healthful vigor of its citizens, and if employers could contract away their responsibility at common law, it would tend to encourage on their part laxity of conduct in, if not an indifference to, the maintenance of proper and reasonable safeguards to human life and limb” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the public policy considerations applicable to paid employees also apply to a volunteer employee, such as the plaintiff herein. The purported release contained in the “Volunteer Agreement” is void as against public policy. Richardson v Island Harvest, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 07768, Second Dept 11-14-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMEND ANSWER, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (AMEND, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

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