You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

IN REINSTATING THE ACTION AFTER VACATING THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS’, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED WHAT SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN A COMPLAINT FOR LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell through the roof of the building he was working on. Apparently plaintiff failed to answer the summary judgment motion because of law office failure. In reinstating the action, the Second Department noted that the causes of action had been adequately pled as follows:​

“‘Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks'” … . “‘To impose liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a violation of the statute and that violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that his fall through the roof was the result of an elevation-related hazard caused by the failure to keep necessary safety devices in place and identified the defendants as the owners of the premises. …

“‘Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed'” … . “‘To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff or a claimant must demonstrate that his [or her] injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable under the circumstances of the case'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was employed in an area where construction was being performed and that his injuries were proximately caused by the failure to comply with applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. ….

“‘Labor Law § 200 essentially codifies landowners’ and general contractors’ common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace'” … . “‘Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work'” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a safe place to work and that the defendants controlled and supervised the work at issue. Bayron Chay Mo v Ultra Dimension Place, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of what should be alleged in the complaint for Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF INSURER DENIED FOUR CLAIMS FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH FOUR DISTINCT CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT TO A WOMAN INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; EACH OF THE FOUR CLAIMS WAS FOR AN AMOUNT BELOW $5000; AN ARBITRATOR AWARDED THE CLAIMED BENEFITS TO THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF THEN SOUGHT DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS WHICH HAS A $5000 THRESHOLD; THE FOUR DISTINCT ARBITRAL AWARDS CANNOT BE COMBINED TO MEET THE $5000 THRESHOLD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined the complaint in this no-fault insurance-benefit action should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:

The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether, under certain circumstances, separate and distinct arbitral awards can be treated by a court as, in effect, a single arbitral award under Insurance Law § 5106(c) and pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii) for the purposes of determining whether the requisite $5,000 threshold establishing subject matter jurisdiction has been met to allow for a de novo review of claims for no-fault insurance benefits…. [W]e hold that the plain language of Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1) does not contemplate allowing separate and distinct arbitral awards to be treated as, in effect, a single arbitral award or to be combined by a court for the purposes of meeting the required monetary jurisdictional threshold under Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii). …

… [P]laintiff American Transit Insurance Company commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(c) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(h)(1)(ii) to seek de novo review of four separate arbitral awards issued by a master arbitrator (hereinafter the arbitral awards). The four arbitral awards were issued by the same master arbitrator, following separate arbitration proceedings upon the plaintiff’s denial of payment for medical services performed by the defendant for Nancy Bayona, an individual who alleged that she was injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident in February 2019 when she was riding as a passenger in a taxi insured by the plaintiff. The arbitration proceedings arose upon the plaintiff’s denial of each of four claims submitted to it by the defendant for a repeated course of chiropractic treatment of Bayona performed by the defendant between March 8 and September 4, 2019. After each of the four arbitration proceedings, the master arbitrator issued an arbitral award in favor of the defendant, respectively, as follows: $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in March 2019; $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in March 2019 and April 2019; $4,767.63 for chiropractic services performed in April 2019 and May 2019; and $3,178.42 for chiropractic services performed in August 2019. … [P]laintiff commenced this action seeking de novo review of the four arbitral awards. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01337, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: De novo review of an arbitral award of no-fault benefits has a threshold of $5000. Here there were four claims for no-fault benefits for four distinct chiropractic treatments provided to a woman injured in a traffic accident. Each of the four claims was for an amount below $5000. The Second Department held the $5000 threshold for de novo review could not be met by combining the four distinct arbitral awards.

 

, ,

THE ALLEGATION A PLASTIC SURGEON POSTED BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PERMISSION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for both a violation of privacy pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and breach of a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleged defendant plastic surgeon posted before and after photographs of the plaintiff without her consent. The breach of a fiduciary duty claim did not duplicate the violation of privacy claim. Physicians have a fiduciary duty not to disclose a patient’s medical records without authorization:

Plaintiff instead alleges that defendants all had a physician-patient relationship with her and that they breached a distinct duty arising out of that relationship by publicly disclosing photographs of her that had been taken in the course of treatment without her agreement … . “It is well established that a patient may maintain a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against his or her physician resulting from the physician’s unauthorized disclosure of the patient’s medical records,” broadly defined as essentially any information acquired by the physician that relates to the patient’s diagnosis or treatment, as such disclosure violates “the implied covenant of trust and confidence that is inherent in the physician patient relationship” … . A claim for breach of fiduciary duty, based as it is upon the well-established duty a physician owes to his or her patient as opposed to a purported right of privacy, may be viable where claims based upon a generalized invasion of privacy are not … . Perry v Rockmore, 2025 NY Slip Op 01141, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Here the allegation defendant plastic surgeon posted before and after photographs of plaintiff stated distinct causes of action for a violation of privacy pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and breach of fiduciary duty (unauthorized disclosure of medical records).

 

, ,

HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN OR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE APPELLATE RULING ON THE PRIOR ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landlord’s motion to renew based upon a change in the law should have been granted}

On appeal, this Court agreed with defendant that the law as it existed prior to enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) applies in this case. However, we found that plaintiffs had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme [to deregulate apartments]. Accordingly, we affirmed denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion.

In April 2023, defendant moved in Supreme Court for renewal of its summary judgment motion. Defendant argued that Casey v Whitehouse Estates, Inc. (39 NY3d 1104 [2023]) supported its position on the summary judgment motion. The motion court denied the motion to renew and did not reach the substantive issue raised by defendant.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, a court of original jurisdiction may entertain a motion for leave to renew based on an alleged change in or clarification of the law, “even after an appellate court has rendered a decision” on the prior order … . Accordingly, defendant’s motion to renew its summary judgment motion should be granted. 435 Cent. Park W. Tenant Assn. v Park Front Apts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Even where the denial of summary judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a motion to renew based upon a change in or clarification of the law should be granted.​

 

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT MAKE SUFFICIENT EFFORTS TO PERSONALLY DELIVER THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE; COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server did not make sufficient efforts to personally deliver the summons and complaint before resorting to nail and mail service:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . The process server resorted to service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) after twice attempting personal service at the defendant’s residence and once attempting service where the process server stated the defendant’s residence could not be accessed due to an “impassable road.” Also, there was no evidence that the process server made any genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of business … . Additionally, the process server’s attempts at personal delivery occurred on weekdays during hours when it reasonably could have been expected that the defendant was either working or in transit from work … . Sams Distribs., LLC v Friedman, 2025 NY Slip Op 01124, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into when a court will find a process server’s efforts to personally deliver the summons and complaint insufficient, thereby rendering the nail and mail service invalid.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have vacated its own dismissal of the action in 2013 because (Wilmington) demonstrated none of criteria for vacation of a judgment or order described in CPLR 5015 (a);

“Under CPLR 5015(a), the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, upon the ground of excusable default; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order; or reversal, modification, or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based” … . “In addition to the specific grounds set forth in CPLR 5015(a), a court may, in its discretion, vacate its own judgment ‘for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice'” … . “However, 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” … . In other words, “[a] court should only exercise its discretionary authority to vacate a judgment in the interests of substantial justice where unique or unusual circumstances . . . warrant such action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the Wilmington’s motion which was to vacate the 2013 dismissal order. Importantly, Wilmington did not adequately explain why it delayed nearly eight years before filing its motion … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sulton, 2025 NY Slip Op 01128, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: CPLR 5015 (a) gives a court the discretionary power to vacate its own order “in the interests of substantial justice.” That power should only be exercised in unique or unusual circumstances, not present here.

 

,

SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS WHICH REPEAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT ARE “SUPPLEMENTAL,” NOT “AMENDED,” COMPLAINTS; DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ANSWER THE INITIAL COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure proceeding was not in default. The defendant answered the first complaint but did not answer two subsequent complaints which were designated “amended complaints,” Amended complaints require an answer, but “supplemental complaints” do not require an answer. Here the “amended complaints” merely repeated the allegations in the original complaint, making them “supplemental,” not “amended,” complaints:

“Generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original pleading, the defendant’s original answer has no effect, and a new responsive pleading is substituted for the original answer. In contrast, a supplemental complaint does not supersede the original pleading and the answer which had already been served at the time the supplemental pleading was interposed remains in effect” … . Here, insofar as asserted against the defendant, the purported amended complaints merely repeated the same allegations against the defendant that were made in the original complaint and, thus, are properly characterized as supplemental complaints … . As the defendant had already answered the allegations asserted, no further answer was required within the meaning of CPLR 3025(d). Thus, the defendant was not in default. U.S. Bank N.A. v Deblinger, 2025 NY Slip Op 01126, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: “Amended” complaints require a new answer, “supplemental” complaints do not. Here, although the subsequent complaints were designated “amended,” they in fact were “supplemental” because they merely repeated the allegations in the first complaint.

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING NOTICE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER ARE DISCRETIONARY ISSUES TO BE DECIDED UPON REMAND; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court and remanding the matter, determined that whether the judgment debtor was entitled to restitution based on the reversal of a restraining notice and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order were not decided by the reversal, but  rather were discretionary issues to be resolved on remand. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… CPLR 5015(d) provides that, “[w]here a judgment or order is set aside or vacated, the court may direct and enforce restitution in like manner and subject to the same conditions as where a judgment is reversed or modified on appeal.” … Thus, “CPLR 5015[d] empowers a court that has set aside a judgment or order to restore the parties to the position they were in prior to its rendition, consistent with the court’s general equitable powers” … . The essential inquiry for a court addressing a request for the equitable remedy of restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscious to permit a party to retain the money that is sought to be recovered … . The determination whether to award restitution is committed to the trial court’s discretion … . * * *

Contrary to defendant’s contention that an installment payment order cannot be directed at funds exempt from execution under CPLR 5231 (i.e., 90% of his monthly disability insurance payments), such an order is the expedient for accessing exempt income … . As Professor Siegel stated long ago, “[o]ne of [CPLR 5226’s] prime uses is in that situation . . . where it appears that the judgment debtor can afford more than the 10% to which the income execution is limited” … . Thus, “[t]he court on the [CPLR 5226] motion can direct the debtor to make regular payments to the judgment creditor in any sum it finds the debtor able to afford, not limited by the 10% that restricts the income execution of CPLR 5231” … . Hamway v Sutton, 2025 NY Slip Op 01062, First Dept 2-25-25

Practice Point: Although this opinion is fact-specific, it includes the criteria for some fundamental debtor-creditor issues, i.e., the amount of monthly disability insurance payments which is available to a judgment debtor, the income-sources which are available to a judgment debtor, whether a plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order, the criteria for a court’s discretionary determination of the amount a judgment debtor can afford to pay every month, etc.

​

,

IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, ABSENT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO DISPENSE WITH IT, A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING MUST BE HELD AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE FACT-FINDING HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the record supported termination of father’s parental rights, but the order must be reversed because the court failed to hold a dispositional hearing after the completion of the fact-finding hearing. The matter was remitted:

Family Court erred in failing to hold a dispositional hearing. “Family Ct Act § 625 (a) expressly provides that, upon completion of a fact-finding hearing, a dispositional hearing may commence immediately after the required findings are made; provided, however, that if all parties consent the court may, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, dispense with the dispositional hearing and make an order of disposition on the basis of competent evidence admitted at the fact-finding hearing” … . Given that the record is devoid of the parties’ consent to dispense with a dispositional hearing, the matter is remitted for a dispositional hearing “or to otherwise affirmatively gain the parties’ consent to dispense of the matter without one” … . Matter of Konner N. (Justin O.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01017, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the order terminating father’s parental rights was reversed because no dispositional hearing was held, and there was no indication the parties consented to proceeding without one. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVIVAL OF OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT IS NEITHER A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOR A CONDITION PRECEDENT; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL PROCEDURAL LAW, THE SECOND CIRCUIT MAY RULE THAT DEFENDANT FORFEITED THE RIGHT TO A TIMELINESS DISMISSAL OF THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT (BASED ON THE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS PREMATURE) BY FAILING TO TIMELY RAISE THE ISSUE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the six-month waiting period associated with the revival of negligence actions pursuant to the Child Victims Act, creating a two-year window for the filing of otherwise time-barred actions, was neither a statute of limitations nor a condition precedent. Therefore, under federal procedural law, the defendant’s failure to timely raise the issue in the federal proceedings forfeited his right to dismissal of the complaint on the ground plaintiff’s action was premature:

In 2019, the legislature passed the Child Victims Act (CVA), which provided that previously time-barred tort claims based on sex offenses against children could be brought within a specified time (see CPLR 214-g). As amended, the CVA provided that such a claim “is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than two years and six months after” February 14, 2019—i.e., “the effective date of this section” (id.). In other words, actions on these claims could be commenced “not earlier than” August 14, 2019 and “not later than” August 14, 2021. * * *

On April 26, 2019, plaintiff commenced a negligence action in state court against defendant, alleging that a teacher employed in one of defendant’s schools engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with her in and around 2009 and 2010, when she was a student under age 17, and that, in 2013, as a result of that conduct, the teacher pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree. * * *

On September 3, 2021, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant argued, for the first time, that the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff commenced her action before CPLR 214-g’s period for filing claims began. Significantly, defendant filed its motion less than three weeks after the statutory period for filing claims ended, meaning that plaintiff would be unable to recommence a timely action if defendant’s motion succeeded. Jones v Cattaraugus-Little Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 01007, CtApp 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals, answering the Second Circuit’s question, determined the six-month waiting period for an otherwise time-barred action brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act was not a statute of limitations or a condition precedent. Therefore the Second Circuit was free to deny a federal defendant’s motion to dismiss the Child Victims Act complaint on the ground the action was premature.

 

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