You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PETITION TO AMEND A NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PARENTS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF TOWN PERSONNEL, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for leave to amend the notice of claim against the town in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case should not have been granted. The infant petitioner was struck by a car crossing a road. The proposed amendment would have alleged a town park ranger waved the family across just before the child was struck. Because the request to amend was made more than a year and 90 days after the accident, the request was untimely for the derivative action by the parents, but the statute of limitations was tolled for the infant petitioner. The Second Department went on to find that petitioners did not demonstrate the town had timely knowledge of the the allegation the family was waved across the street by a town employee, even though the allegation was memorialized in a Suffolk County police report:

… [T]he petitioners failed to establish that the Town acquired actual knowledge, within 90 days of the collision or a reasonable time thereafter, of the essential facts constituting the claim that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. It is not alleged that the child was struck by a Town vehicle or a Town employee. In addition, Magwood’s [mother’s] testimony at her hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h did not indicate that a Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. Although several witnesses to the collision gave a statement to the effect that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway, these statements were made to Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter SCPD) personnel and memorialized in SCPD reports… . Further, while the Town park ranger prepared a Town Division of Enforcement and Security Public Safety report on the date of the collision, that report did not indicate that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. ” [F]or a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation'” … . The Town park ranger’s report did not support a ready inference that the Town committed a potentially actionable wrong … .

Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim asserting the theory that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway and for the subsequent delay in filing this petition… . Although the petitioners satisfied their initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the Town as a result of the late notice, and the Town failed to make a “particularized showing” of substantial prejudice … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted … . Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 08482, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, ,

AUDIOTAPES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND THE CHILD WERE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING UNDER CPLR 4506 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly suppressed audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child in this custody dispute between the maternal and paternal grandmothers. The audiotapes constituted illegal wiretapping pursuant to CPLR 4506:

Contrary to the maternal grandmother’s contention, the Family Court properly granted the paternal grandmother’s motion to suppress audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child pursuant to CPLR 4506, which provides for the suppression of evidence obtained by illegal wiretapping. The maternal grandmother and her son (the child’s uncle) were not parties to the conversation, were not present during the conversation, and the maternal grandmother does not assert that, under the circumstances, any vicarious consent was given… . Moreover, there is no merit to the maternal grandmother’s contention that the motion was untimely because it was not made before the hearing, since the paternal grandmother only learned of the existence of the tapes during the hearing (see CPLR 4506[4]). Matter of Dennis v Davis-Schloemer, 2018 NY Slip Op 08480, Second Dept 12-12-18

MOTION TO SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

,

GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although the release signed by plaintiff (Moore) mentioned a 2007 action, the release stated it was not limited to the 2007 action. Therefore it applied to the instant action. The fact that plaintiff may not have intended that it apply to the current proceedings, a unilateral mistake, does not invalidate a contract:

The general release, executed by Moore after he commenced the present action, released defendant “from all manner of . . . claims and demands . . . in law or in equity that against [defendant] he ever had, now has or which he . . . shall or may have for any reason from the beginning of the world to the date of this release.” Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the release is limited by its terms to the 2007 action, noting that “where a release contains a recital of a particular claim . . . and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . The release, however, does not limit or otherwise restrict itself to the 2007 action. Rather, it clearly and unambiguously specifies that it “includes, but is not limited to,” the incident that led to the 2007 action … . Moore executed the release with full knowledge that this action was pending against defendant, and the “timing and unequivocal and unconditional language” of the release therefore demonstrates its applicability to the 2014 action at issue here … . …

Although plaintiffs claim that Moore did not intend for the release to encompass this action when he executed it, “the fact that [Moore] may have intended something else is irrelevant[, as] a mere unilateral mistake . . . with respect to the meaning and effect of the release . . . does not constitute an adequate basis for invalidating” it … . Stevens v Town of Chenango (Forks), 2018 NY Slip Op 08389, Third Dept 12-6-18

CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/RELEASES  (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department. reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff alleged a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted during surgery in 1993 and was discovered and removed in 2012. If the stent were a “foreign object,” the action would have been timely. But the stent was deliberately inserted for a medical purpose, although it should have been removed after up to six months. Because the stent was purposely inserted, it was not a “foreign object:”

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the ureteral stent/catheter allegedly inserted in his body was a “foreign object” such that the discovery rule should apply. According to the parties’ experts, a ureteral stent/catheter is a tube that bridges the kidney to the bladder, and is inserted and intentionally left in a patient for up to six months to assist in the draining of the kidney when the ureter is obstructed or when damage to the ureter was repaired and it is healing. The parties’ experts agree that if a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted in the plaintiff’s body during the 1993 procedure, then it was intentionally left in his body for the purpose of assisting in the draining of the kidney. Thus, the device was retained in the plaintiff’s body (if inserted at all) for ” postsurgery healing purposes'” and was not “analogous to tangible items” or “surgical paraphernalia,” such as clamps, scalpels, sponges, and drains, “introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure”… . For these reasons, the ureteral catheter/stent was not a “foreign object,” and the action should have been dismissed as time-barred … . Livsey v Nyack Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08289, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/FOREIGN OBJECT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined; (1) although no appeal lies from a judgment entered by default against the appealing party the contested issues may be reviewed; (2) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint because plaintiff was not ready to proceed; (3) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to present a “substitute expert” when the noticed expert could not appear at trial; (4) Supreme Court should not have dismissed the action with prejudice because the dismissal was not on the merits:

Although no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511), an appeal from such a judgment brings up for review ” those matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court'” … . …

“Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b), a court has the discretion to direct dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff fails to appear or is not ready to proceed” … . Here, the plaintiff was not ready to proceed to trial due to the unavailability of her expert. …

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), “where a party for good cause shown retains an expert an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to give appropriate notice thereof, the party shall not thereupon be precluded from introducing the expert’s testimony at the trial solely on grounds of noncompliance with this paragraph” … . “A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) is left to the sound discretion of the court” … . Here, since the plaintiff offered only a vague excuse for the unavailability of the intended expert, without offering any details as to when the plaintiff learned of that expert’s unavailability, she failed to establish good cause to offer the testimony of the “substitute expert” … . Moreover, the plaintiff had previously been unprepared to proceed with trial due to, inter alia, the unavailability of experts … .

… “[S]ince dismissal of an action for a default pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 does not constitute a determination on the merits,” the dismissal should have been without prejudice … . Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 08280, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town should be held in contempt for failure to erect a fence on town land in accordance with a stipulation. Plaintiff had requested the fence because people were crossing town land to trespass on plaintiff’s property:

“In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt, it is not necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party” … .

In order to adjudicate a party in civil contempt, a court must find: (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the party against whom contempt is sought disobeyed the order, (3) that the party who disobeyed the order had knowledge of its terms, and (4) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct… . The party seeking a finding of civil contempt must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, the plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the so-ordered stipulation clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate to construct a fence… , that the Town had knowledge of the stipulation and nevertheless disobeyed it, and that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the offending conduct.

In opposition, the Town failed to refute the plaintiff’s showing or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order … . Palmieri v Town of Babylon, 2018 NY Slip Op 08317, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CONTEMPT, TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))

,

PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

 

The Second Department determined the contested matters had already been ruled upon in a prior appeal and therefore constituted the law of the case which must be followed. The contrary ruling by Supreme Court was reversed:

“An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [and] operates to foreclose reexamination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” … . On the prior appeal, this Court considered, and rejected, the arguments that Pascuitti [a resondent] was no longer a proper party to this proceeding and that the petitioner could not seek relief against the individual movants in the contempt motion … . The Town and the individuals movants have failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant reexamination of these issues… . Accordingly, based on the law of the case doctrine, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting the motion … . Matter of Norton v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 08308, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LAW OF THE CASE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LAW OF THE CASE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that Hawaii should not have been found to be the more appropriate forum for this custody proceeding without first assuring that all the findings made in Hawaii were vacated. Mother had moved to Hawaii and her custody proceedings there were completed before the Hawaii court was alerted by Family Court of father’s custody proceedings in New York. Hawaii never had subject matter jurisdiction so the matter was sent back to Family Court for a fresh ruling on whether New York is an inconvenient forum:

… [G]iven the substance of its discussions with the Hawaii Court, the Family Court’s determination to engage in an inconvenient forum analysis under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(1) was an improvident exercise of discretion. Since New York was the child’s home state pursuant to the UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act] , the Hawaii Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make determinations on the mother’s child custody petition… . When the Family Court conferred with the Hawaii Court, the Hawaii Court informed the Family Court that the father was personally served with the mother’s custody petition, which suggested that the Hawaii Court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the father. But, having been informed of the facts establishing that New York was the child’s home state, the Hawaii Court did not acknowledge its own lack of subject matter jurisdiction to have issued orders regarding child custody … . “A judgment or order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived” … . In the absence of any indication that the Hawaii Court vacated those orders, the Family Court should not have determined that the Hawaii Court was a more appropriate forum. Indeed, the father did not participate in any of the proceedings in Hawaii and there was no certainty that Hawaii would permit the father to not only reopen the hearings previously held in order to submit his own testimony and evidence, but also, that he would be given an opportunity to challenge the evidence already submitted, including to cross-examine the mother. Matter of Montanez v Tompkinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08305, Second Dept 12-5-18

FAMILY LAW (FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/FORUM NON CONVENIENS (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FAMILY LAW, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an adverse inference jury instruction, not striking the answer, was the appropriate sanction in this negligent supervision case. Plaintiffs, coguardians of a blind and disabled adult (Nicholas), alleged negligent supervision and training of an employee (Escajadillo) of the respite care facility where Nicholas fractured his leg. Rosa’s employment records had been negligently destroyed by the facility:

Striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct and, in order to impose such a sanction, the court ” will consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . In contrast, where the moving party has not been deprived of the ability to establish his or her case or defense, a less severe sanction is appropriate … . Where evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed, adverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate … .

Here, because the plaintiffs asserted causes of action alleging negligent training and supervision, the defendants’ knowledge of any prior wrongdoing by its employees and information concerning their training are issues central to the plaintiffs’ causes of action, and the employees’ personnel files would be critical in determining those issues … . In support of their motion, the plaintiffs established that the defendants improperly failed to “suspend [their] routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents'” … , resulting in the negligent destruction of Escajadillo’s personnel file. However, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were deprived of the ability to establish their case. Accordingly, the drastic sanction of striking the defendants’ answer is not appropriate … , but the lesser sanction of directing that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to Escajadillo’s personnel file is warranted … . Squillacioti v Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08343, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (NEGLIGENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SPOLIATION, ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly relied upon the results of a Frye hearing involving the same expert (and judge) in a prior trial. The expert was allowed to testify plaintiff’s injuries could not have been caused by the traffic accident. There was a defense verdict:

“The long-recognized rule of Frye v United States . . . is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field” … . “General acceptance can be demonstrated through scientific or legal writings, judicial opinions, or expert opinions other than that of the proffered expert” … . Further, even if the proffered expert opinion is based upon accepted methods, it must satisfy “the admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case” … .

In this case, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to permit the expert’s testimony without first holding a hearing to determine its admissibility … . “A court need not hold a Frye hearing where[, as in the case at bar,] it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony” … . Moreover, in this particular case, there was a proper foundation for the admission of the expert’s opinion. Shah v Rahman, 2018 NY Slip Op 08342, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, FRYE HEARING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A FRYE HEARING IN A PRIOR TRIAL TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE EXPERT (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