You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) motion to dismiss causes of action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act should have been granted. The underlying action was brought by disabled residents of an adult-care facility which was being closed. The matter settled and the facility closed rendering further proceedings academic. Supreme Court had held that the state claims were moot, but the federal claims were viable under an exception to the mootness doctrine:

The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. That exception permits a court to pass on moot issues when there exists: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . If one or more of these elements is missing, the exception does not apply… .

Here, there is no likelihood of repetition because the issues are fact-specific … . Furthermore, because the issues are fact-specific, they are not substantial and novel … .

The plaintiffs contend that their federal law causes of action are not fact-specific, in that they challenge the validity of the regulations pursuant to which the DOH approves of any closure plan for an assisted living residence … . The plaintiffs contend that the regulations themselves violate the mandate in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act that services be administered in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the resident … . However, this facial challenge to the DOH’s closure regulations is time-barred … .

The issues presented here also do not typically evade review… . An injunction maintaining the status quo was an effective procedure here and would be in a future case raising similar issues. The issues here only became moot when the plaintiffs voluntarily opted to settle their claims against the LLC … . Berger v Prospect Park Residence, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08110, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the action stemming from plaintiff church’s defrocking and ejecting defendant nun from a convent was not justiciable in the New York courts because inquiry into religious doctrine or practice was required. Defendant nun had complained about sexual harassment by a priest and alleged she was retaliated against by the plaintiff church:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” … . A court may, however, properly preside over a dispute involving a religious body only when the dispute may be resolved utilizing neutral principles of law … .

Here, the summary proceedings for eviction and the action, inter alia, for ejectment are inextricably intertwined with the determinations of the ecclesiastical court, particularly its 2008 determination defrocking the defendant and ordering her to vacate the convent. Therefore, this consolidated action involves review of an ecclesiastical determination that may not be resolved by resort to neutral principles of law … . Moreover, this matter does not involve a purely religious determination requiring this Court to accept the actions of the ecclesiastical court as final and binding … . Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v Sukharevskaya, 2018 NY Slip Op 08167, Second Dept 11-28-18

RELIGION (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELIGION, (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation back doctrine did not apply to an attempt to amend the answer to add a fraud cause of action against Tam, an officer of plaintiff corporation, because Tam and the corporation were not united in interest. Tam had signed the contract at issue as an officer, not in his individual capacity:

” The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well'” … . The original counterclaim asserted against the plaintiff alleged that plaintiff breached contractual obligations for which Tam—an officer of the corporation—was not individually liable … . “There is no legal theory of vicarious liability for breach of contract” by “an agent of a disclosed principal” … . Tam, when signing the contract in issue, did so as president of the plaintiff, and not individually. Therefore, the cross movants are not united in interest. Further, since Tam signed the contract, [defendant] was aware of Tam’s identity at the time the original answer was served. Therefore, failure to join Tam cannot be attributable to a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties … . Thus, the addition of Tam as a party to this action was improper. Roco G.C. Corp. v Bridge View Tower, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08164, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ( FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/UNITED IN INTEREST  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence should not have been denied and an adverse inference jury instruction was appropriate. Plaintiff alleged a “soft-close” mechanism on a van malfunctioned causing her finger to be crushed. After the “soft-close” mechanism was replaced it was destroyed:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The defendant sustained its burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the soft-close automatic door mechanism on the driver’s side door at the time of its destruction in September 2015, when the plaintiff had the mechanism replaced, that the evidence was negligently destroyed before the defendant had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the litigation … . Nevertheless, since the defendant’s ability to prove its defense was not fatally compromised by the destruction of the evidence… , the appropriate sanction for the spoliation herein is not to strike the complaint, but rather to direct that an adverse inference charge be given against the plaintiff at trial with respect to the unavailable evidence … . Richter v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08163, Second Dept 11-28-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE INFERENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this foreclosure action, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that a party (Moreno) was a necessary party and should not have dismissed the complaint against the other defendants on that ground:

Bromley [plaintiff] argues, in effect, that it was denied due process as a result of being unable to contest whether Dual Properties is the fee owner and whether Moreno is a necessary party.

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Here, the record does not support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Moreno’s ownership of the property was “uncontested.” In any event, the court’s determination that Moreno was a necessary party prejudiced Bromley in that “it was never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the remaining defendants for failure to join a necessary party. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Moreno, 2018 NY Slip Op 08107, Second Dept 11-28-18

FORECLOSURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Ibrahims, the driver and owner of the second car in a four-car chain-reaction rear-end accident, were entitled to summary judgment. The accident occurred in Pennsylvania but all parties were residents of New York. Supreme Court, sua sponte, held that Pennsylvania law applied and the Ibrahims summary judgment motion must be denied under Pennsylvania law. The Second Department noted that none of the parties raised the choice of law issue and therefore the parties must be deemed to have consented to the applicability of New York law:

The Supreme Court should not have raised the issue of Pennsylvania law of its own accord, and should not have based its determination of the motion on a ground that was neither raised nor briefed by the parties … . “Parties to a civil litigation, in the absence of a strong countervailing public policy, may consent, formally or by their conduct, to the law to be applied” … . By failing to raise a choice of law issue in opposition to Ibrahim’s motion for summary judgment, the codefendants are deemed to have consented to the application of New York law… .

In this case, Ibrahim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he brought his vehicle safely to a stop behind the lead vehicle before being struck in the rear by the Goldman vehicle … . Abdou v Malone, 2018 NY Slip Op 08106, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHOICE OF LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CHOICE OF LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (HE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , , , , ,

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for permission to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. After criminal charges were dismissed, eight months after the deadline for filing a notice of claim, petitioner sought to bring an action alleging violations of 42 USC 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution. The Second Department found that a notice of claim is not required for the 42 USC 1983 action, the statute of limitations had expired on the assault and battery actions, reports documenting an investigation did not provide the city with timely notice of the essential facts of the claim, the excuse for the delay was not reasonable, and petitioner did not show the city was not prejudiced by the delay:

The branch of the petition which sought leave to serve a late notice of claim to assert, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, violations of the petitioner’s federal civil and constitutional rights, should have been denied as unnecessary… . Such a claim is not subject to the State statutory notice of claim requirement … . …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the relevant state law claims within 90 days after they arose or a reasonable time thereafter. Actual knowledge could not be readily inferred from two reports dated June 18, 2015, documenting an internal investigation conducted by the police department to determine how a firearm was allegedly carried into, and concealed within, the station house, that “a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [City]” against the plaintiff … . Moreover, the mere alleged existence of other police reports and records, without evidence of their content, and the involvement of the City’s police officers in the alleged incident, without more, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City … .

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s incarceration did not constitute such an excuse, since the relevant state law claims did not accrue, and the petitioner’s time to serve a notice of claim did not begin to run, until he was released from custody … . Matter of Nicholson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08134, Second Dept 11-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))//MALICIOUS PROSECUTION  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the employment discrimination determination, held that the action against the employer, Food Corp., was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply. Complainant had originally named Trade Fair as her employer and then added Food Corp. more than a year after her termination:

Food Corp. does not dispute that the first prong of the relation-back test was satisfied, because the claims against Food Corp. arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as those asserted against Trade Fair. The complainant also established the third prong of the test by presenting evidence suggesting that Food Corp. had notice of the proceeding before the statute of limitations expired, and that Food Corp. should have known that, but for the complainant’s mistake in omitting it as a respondent in her complaint, the proceeding would have been timely commenced against it as well.

However, the complainant failed to satisfy the second prong of the relation-back test, because Food Corp. and Trade Fair were not united in interest. Respondents are “united in interest only when their interest in the subject-matter [of the proceeding] is such that [the respondents] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other'” … . “[T]he question of unity of interest is to be determined from an examination of (1) the jural relationship of the parties whose interests are said to be united and (2) the nature of the claim asserted against them by the [complainant]” … . Respondents are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a defense different from that of the original party … . Here, the Commissioner dismissed the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against Trade Fair on the grounds that the complainant never interacted with or took direction from Trade Fair’s employees, and that Trade Fair was not the complainant’s employer. In contrast, the Commissioner determined that Food Corp. was the complainant’s employer because Food Corp.’s personnel hired and fired the complainant and controlled the complainant’s daily workplace activities. Thus, the record makes clear that Food Corp.’s and Trade Fair’s interests in the administrative proceeding did not stand or fall together … . Matter of 130-10 Food Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 08123, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff sought to change the dare of the accident from October 12, 2012, to August 15, 2012:

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on rainwater that came in through negligently maintained windows in the hallway of defendants’ building. In support of her motion to amend, plaintiff stated that she originally alleged that the accident occurred on October 13, 2012, but that after reviewing her medical records she realized that she was mistaken and that the accident actually occurred on August 15, 2012, the day before she sought treatment at the hospital.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion, as defendants demonstrated that the delay in notifying them that plaintiff had incorrectly identified the date of the accident prejudiced their ability to investigate the incident and to defend the action using surveillance videotapes of the hallway … . Defendants showed that, after learning of plaintiff’s claim, they retrieved surveillance tapes of the alleged accident date of October 13th, which showed that no accident occurred on that date, but that they were no longer able to retrieve videotapes from August 2012 by the time plaintiff informed them of the claimed error in the pleadings. Furthermore, the August 2012 hospital record plaintiff relies upon reflects that she sought treatment from a podiatrist for an unrelated foot condition, and does not reference any fall the previous day … . Otero v Walton Ave. Assoc. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08083, First Dept 11-27-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINT (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the stipulation signed by plaintiff teacher, who agreed to resign in return for discontinuing the disciplinary hearing, was binding under contract principles, despite the inapplicability of CPLR 2104 to administrative proceedings. After signing the stipulation, plaintiff changed his mind:

In the stipulation, DOE (Department of Education] agreed to discontinue the disciplinary hearing on the pending misconduct charges and to take no further disciplinary action against plaintiff, in exchange for which plaintiff agreed “to irrevocably retire from his employment with [DOE] … .” The agreement was signed by plaintiff, his counsel, and DOE’s counsel … . Annexed to the stipulation was a letter signed by plaintiff and addressed to District Superintendent Karen Watts stating, “I hereby irrevocably retire from [DOE] … .” The stipulation contained a signature line for Superintendent Watts, who signed it several days later.

Before Superintendent Watts signed the stipulation, plaintiff notified DOE that he had changed his mind and wanted to rescind the stipulation. He argues that the stipulation was unenforceable when he changed his mind because not all the parties had signed it. …

Although CPLR 2104 is not applicable to agreements entered into in administrative proceedings, the stipulation signed by plaintiff and counsel acting on behalf of DOE is binding under general contract principles … . Plaintiff failed to show the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or that counsel lacked DOE’s consent to enter into the stipulation … . Plaintiff’s agreement to retire was irrevocable, and plaintiff understood its consequences. His change of mind is not a cause sufficient to set aside his agreement … . Nor is his parol evidence, offered to show that the parties did not intend to be bound by the stipulation until Superintendent Watts had signed it, admissible to add to or vary the terms of the writing … . Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08065, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 2104  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST 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