You are here: / 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).

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))

, , , ,

BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Civil Service Commission (CSC) properly upheld the termination of  the petitioner correction officers for using excessive force against an inmate. The court noted that, because the petitioners chose to appeal the determination of the administrative law judge to the CSC, instead of bringing an Article 78, the court’s review powers are extremely limited:

Civil Service Law § 76(1) permits a person whose civil service employment has been terminated to “appeal from such determination either by an application to the state or municipal commission having jurisdiction, or by an application to the court in accordance with [article 78].” If the former option is chosen, “[t]he decision of such civil service commission shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” … . The Court of Appeals has clarified that, despite the plain language in the statute, judicial review is not completely foreclosed … . Rather, the article 78 court, instead of being guided by the substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious standards of review, is limited to reviewing whether “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction” … .

Petitioners argue that CSC acted unconstitutionally because it relied on the statements of the inmates, who never testified, thus depriving petitioners of any chance to cross-examine them. However, this point is unpreserved. Petitioners fail to point to anything in the record showing that they ever sought to cross-examine or call the inmates and were denied that opportunity. More importantly, they never protested that their constitutional rights were being violated. This Court has “no discretionary authority” to “reach[] an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice” in an article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination … , including issues touching on due process … and evidentiary challenges … . Matter of Almanzar v City of New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 08062, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the law office failure excuse was insufficient to warrant vacating the order of discontinuance:

While courts have discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice… , “[a] court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgments is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud,] mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … .

Here, the plaintiff asserted that the action was erroneously discontinued by prior counsel due to confusion generated by an impending substitution of counsel. “Where a party asserts law office failure, it must provide a detailed and credible explanation of the default'”… , and conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are insufficient … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the uncorroborated representation by its current counsel that the action was erroneously discontinued by prior counsel did not constitute a detailed and credible explanation warranting vacatur of the order of discontinuance and restoration of the action … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of discontinuance and to restore the action to the active calendar. IndyMac Bank, FSB v Izzo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08014, Second Dept 11-21-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (VACATE DISCONTINUANCE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE, MOTION TO VACATE  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DISCONTINUANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ “law office failure” excuse was sufficient to warrant granting the motion to vacate the default judgments:

“A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), and thereupon to serve a late answer, must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action”… . The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and in the exercise of that discretion, the court may accept law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005… ). Here, the defaulting defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse, based upon law office failure arising from a miscommunication between their former counsel and their present counsel, for their default in answering the complaint or otherwise appearing in the action … .

The defaulting defendants also demonstrated that they had a potentially meritorious defense. …

Under the circumstances here, particularly in light of the evidence that the defaulting defendants’ delay was not willful, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs resulting from the defaulting defendants’ short delay in appearing and seeking to answer the complaint, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defaulting defendants’ motion to vacate their default and to compel the plaintiffs to accept their late answer … . Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avenue C Med., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08010, Second Dept 11-21-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015, CPLR 2005 (VACATE DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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