You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

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))

,

CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, which require an out-of-state litigant to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in case the nonresident loses, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

When plaintiff commenced this personal injury action, she was a New York resident. Plaintiff then relocated to Georgia, prompting defendants to move, pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, for an order compelling plaintiff—a nonresident at the time the motion was made—to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in the event she lost the case (see CPLR 8101). Defendants also requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR 8502 until plaintiff complied with the order. In opposition, plaintiff argued that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 were unconstitutional because they violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution by impairing nonresident plaintiffs’ fundamental right of access to the courts.

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion, opining that although access to the courts is a fundamental right protectable under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 do not bar access to the courts … . Supreme Court further stated that security for costs provisions are common nationwide … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. The court held that CPLR article 85 satisfied the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Canadian Northern R.R. Co. v Eggen (252 US 553 [1920]), and re-affirmed in McBurney v Young (569 US 221 [2013]), that nonresidents must be given “access to the courts of the state upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights [they] may have” … . On that basis, the Appellate Division held that “the challenged statutory provisions do not deprive noncitizens of New York of reasonable and adequate access to New York courts” … . … [[W]e … affirm. Clement v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 07693, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CPLR 8501, 8503 (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/COSTS  (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))

, , ,

UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the shareholder derivative action against HSBC (bank) alleging breach of a fiduciary duty to implement money laundering prevention safeguards should not have been dismissed. The nominal defendant, HSBC Holdings, is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and is headquartered in London. The motion to dismiss alleged the failure to seek permission for the action from the English High Court, as well as the failure to demonstrate the futility of seeking redress from the corporation, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, required dismissal of the complaint. The Second Department held that the rule requiring permission of the English court was procedural and therefore the law of the forum (New York), not the United Kingdom, applied. The Second Department further held that the complaint demonstrated the futility of first seeking redress from the corporation and New York was the proper forum:

… [T]he Court of Appeals decided Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd. (30 NY3d 247), which held that a Cayman Islands court rule requiring plaintiffs in shareholder derivative actions to first apply to the Cayman Islands Grand Court for leave to continue the action is a procedural rule of the Cayman Islands, and “therefore does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to litigate his derivative claims in New York” … . … Based upon the analysis set forth in Davis, we find that the judicial-permission requirement set forth in the UK Companies Act is a procedural rule applicable only in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland. …

As an alternative ground for affirmance … , the nominal defendants contend that the plaintiff lacks standing under New York law pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c) because the amended complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff made efforts to secure initiation of the action by the board itself or set forth the reasons for not making such effort … . * * *

In view of the illegal purpose, magnitude, and duration of the alleged wrongdoing, as well as the identity of beneficiaries to the transactions, the allegations were such that the transactions should have come to the attention of senior management and the board of directors … . * * *

… [G]iven that the allegations of wrongdoing occurred in New York, that only 21 of the 75 individual defendants live and work outside of New York, and that 3 of the nominal defendants are either incorporated or headquartered in New York, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the nominal defendants were not entitled to dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens [CPLR 327]. Mason-Mahon v Flint, 2018 NY Slip Op 07716, Second Dept 11-14-18

CORPORATION LAW (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKING LAW  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (BANKING LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 327  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 626 (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint seeking specific performance, based on the language of the real estate purchase contract, should have been granted. Plaintiff was the highest bidder on real property and signed a purchase contract but did not appear on the closing dates:

… [W]e find that the terms and conditions of the contract of sale utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations and establish a defense as a matter of law. The contract clearly provides that the plaintiff’s failure to close pursuant to the terms and conditions of sale will result in a forfeiture of the down payment; that in the event the closing is postponed at the plaintiff’s request, then the adjourned date shall be deemed the final law date; that the plaintiff’s failure to close on the final law date shall entitle the County to cancel the sale and to retain the down payment; and, in those circumstances, the plaintiff waives all claims of any right, title and interest in the subject property and the down payment. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the contract of sale demonstrate that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff—the alleged breach of contract by the County—is not a fact at all, and no significant dispute exists regarding it. Mahmood v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 07715, Second Dept 11-14-18

CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff-decedent’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted. Decedent’s statement to his wife in the emergency room, to the effect he should not have used the ladder as he did, was admissible as a declaration against interest. There was evidence from a co-worker that the ladder may not have been the cause of decedent’s injuries, i.e., there was evidence decedent was suffering chest pains 10 feet away from the ladder, which was upright. The court noted that factual assertions included in a memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff-decedent’s motion were properly considered and preserved issues for appeal:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting decedent’s statement that he was working on a ladder when it started to move, and when he tried to stabilize the ladder, it tipped and struck him in the chest … . Plaintiff was not “required to present further evidence that the ladder was defective” … .

However, defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether decedent’s injuries were caused by an accident involving a ladder. Two accident reports set forth his alleged statement that he was working on the ladder when he started feeling chest pains and his legs became “unsteady” or “wobbly.” Moreover, decedent’s coworker, who was working in the same apartment unit separated from decedent by a concrete wall but went over to decedent’s area, not in response to any commotion but for routine purposes, saw that the ladder was in the upright position about 10 feet away from decedent when he expressed that he was suffering from chest pains … . Although decedent was disoriented and unable to answer basic questions at some points, he eventually became alert while in the hospital, yet his medical records do not refer to any ladder accident.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, defendants preserved their arguments about triable issues of fact by asserting them in their memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. Caminiti v Extell W. 57th St. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07667, First Dept 11-13-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (PRESERVATION, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award should have been confirmed. The dispute concerned a broker’s fee provision in a lease. The arbitrator reasoned that the lease provision did not control because at the time the tenants bought the property the lease had expired and tenancy was month to month. The First Department explained the extremely limited court-review powers re: arbitration awards:

CPLR 7511 provides just four grounds for vacating an arbitration award, including that the arbitrator “exceeded his power” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]), which “occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power”… . Mere errors of fact or law are insufficient to vacate an arbitral award … . “[C]ourts are obligated to give deference to the decision of the arbitrator, … even if the arbitrator misapplied the substantive law in the area of the contract” … .

Here, the arbitrator’s conclusion that a sales commission was not due under the precise terms of the Agreement because the lease was not extended is neither wholly irrational nor contrary to any strong public policy … . Matter of NRT N.Y. LLC v Spell, 2018 NY Slip Op 07664, First Dept 11-13-18

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

,

MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

he Fourth Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court), determined a motion seeking summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted on a ground not raised in the motion. Defendants alleged the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should be dismissed because plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The judge, sua sponte, searched the record and granted summary judgment on a different ground:

… [T]he court erred in searching the record and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, although defendants did not advance their contention before the trial court, we conclude that the contention is properly before us because defendants lacked an opportunity to raise it at any time before this appeal … . Further, ” [a] motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense’ ” … . Here, the only issue raised with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was on defendants’ motion, wherein they asserted that dismissal was warranted on the ground that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (c) and 23-3.3 (c). Lord v Whelan & Curry Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07563, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES   (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/SUA SPONTE LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted, noting that plaintiff’s argument in the reply papers should have been considered because it was a response to defendants’ opposition motion:

Plaintiff was injured when a metal shim plate affixed to a steel column, that was being installed as part of a temporary truss system, suddenly detached and hit him in the head. Plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by the undisputed failure of safety devices that were supposed to afford proper protection against the elevation-related risks that plaintiff faced during the installation of the column being hoisted into place … . The tack welds used to secure the metal shim plate to the column were “safety devices” for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) because they were intended to be a temporary measure to keep the shim plate attached to the column during installation … . The welds were to be removed once the column was in place, at which time the plates would be permanently bolted into place. The evidence established that the accident occurred when the welds failed, inasmuch as the shim plate, which weighed between 200 and 400 pounds, was welded on only one side of the metal column … . Thus, the shim plate “fell because of the inadequacy of a safety device. . .[that was] put in place as to give proper protection for” plaintiff, entitling him to partial summary judgment … .

The motion court should have considered plaintiff’s reply argument that the one-sided tack welds were insufficient to safely secure the shim plate to the column because it was made in response to defendants’ opposition to the motion … . Keerdoja v Legacy Yards Tenant, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 11-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (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