You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted, and the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (attorney’s fees) for frivolous conduct (bringing the motion to set aside) should have been granted. The dissenting justice agreed the verdict should not have been set aside, but disagreed with the imposition of sanctions on defense counsel. The plaintiff alleged she fell (19 inches) because there was no handrail on one side to the stairs. The Second Department explained that even if the jury found the absence of a handrail to be open and obvious, the jury still could have found the absence of the handrail acted as a trap for the unwary:

“Proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability against an owner for failure to maintain property in a safe condition”… . “While such proof is relevant to the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence, a hazard that is open and obvious may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff distracted” … . “The determination of . . . whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts  … . …

… [T}he Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an award of costs in the form of reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 based on the frivolous conduct of the defendants in moving to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to the extent that the motion was predicated upon the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish at trial that they owned the subject property. * * *

… [T]he record shows that the defendants’ ownership of the property was never genuinely disputed. Cram v Keller, 2018 NY Slip Op 08007, Second Dept 11-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STAIRWAYS (SLIP AND FALL, OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS  (SLIP AND FALL, OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SET ASIDE VERDICT, MOTION TO (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, ATTORNEYS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, ATTORNEYS, WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the arbitration proceeding conducted by Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) had a collateral estoppel effect upon subsequent proceedings concerning the same matter conducted by the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Petitioner was accused of providing marijuana to a resident of a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. The OPWDD arbitration concluded petitioner was not guilty. However the Justice Center essentially sustained the charges. The central question was whether the OPWDD and the Justice Center were in privity, such that the Justice Center must accept the outcome of the OPWDD arbitration:

Collateral estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings, and when the doctrine’s requirements are satisfied, “[an] arbitrator’s factual findings must be accorded collateral estoppel effect” … .

…[T]the Justice Center shared interests with OPWDD in the disciplinary proceeding stemming from its fundamental statutory obligation to “protect[] . . . vulnerable persons who reside in or receive services from [state-operated] facilities” and “assur[e], on behalf of the state, that vulnerable persons are afforded care that is of a uniformly high standard” … . The Justice Center directly served these purposes by participating as counsel in the disciplinary proceeding conducted by OPWDD pursuant to its governing regulations and the pertinent collective bargaining agreement to determine whether petitioner should be terminated from her employment working with vulnerable persons… . …

… The Justice Center is required by statute to develop the code of conduct that governs OPWDD employees such as petitioner who regularly work with vulnerable persons in facilities like the group home at issue here … . …

… [T]he OPWDD form that was used to report the incident … included a section indicating that the Justice Center had been notified and providing the date, time and identification number of the notification … . The Justice Center’s subsequent investigation of the incident was carried out by an investigator who testified that he was employed by OPWDD. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2018 NY Slip Op 07996, Third Dept 11-21-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/ARBITRATION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying (reversing) Supreme Court in this action for divorce, determined that defendant’s motion to preclude plaintiff from introducing certain evidence at trial because of the failure to comply with discovery orders should have been granted. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees was properly denied, however, because plaintiff is the less-monied spouse:

A court may prohibit a party “from producing in evidence designated things or items of testimony” if the party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126[2] …). Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious … . The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from either (1) the repeated failure to respond to demands or comply with court-ordered discovery, without a reasonable excuse for these failures, or (2) the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time. The willful and contumacious character of the plaintiff’s conduct may be inferred from her failure to respond to the defendant’s letter … , despite two court orders directing her to do so, and her failure to proffer any excuse for her failure. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to preclude the plaintiff from producing physical evidence or testimony at trial relating to certain limited items previously requested but not disclosed should have been granted.

We agree, however, with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to direct the plaintiff to pay interim counsel fees in the sum of $5,000, since the plaintiff is the less-monied spouse … . Maliah-Dupass v Dupass, 2018 NY Slip Op 08018, Second Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))/DIVORCE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126 (DIVORCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRECLUSION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

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))

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