You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, in a matter of first impression, determined that the insurer of a New York State driver (Country-Wide) did not have sufficient contacts with North Carolina, where a U-Haul vehicle driven by the New York driver rear-ended the injured parties, to provide New York with jurisdiction. The insurer of the U-Haul vehicle (Repwest) sought to recover, in New York, the amount of the settlement after Country-Wide failed to appear in North Carolina:

On this appeal we are asked to consider an issue that we have never directly addressed: whether an automobile liability policy's territory of coverage clause that covers any accident within the United States and the occurrence of the accident in the forum state are sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the primary insurer of the offending vehicle. We find that the connection is not sufficient to comport with federal due process, and that this renders the foreign judgment unenforceable. * * *

We find that minimum contacts has not been established on this record. Countrywide did not purposefully avail itself of conducting activities within North Carolina. It is undisputed that Countrywide has never been licensed or authorized to do business in any capacity in North Carolina. At all times relevant to this suit, Countrywide has only been licensed to issue insurance policies within New York State. Countrywide has never maintained an office or employees in North Carolina. It is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York. Countrywide has never conducted or solicited business in or from North Carolina. There is a qualitative distinction between contracting to cover an insured under a territory of coverage clause and the insurer of the policy being amenable to being haled into court anywhere in the United States in a dispute with another insurer. Countrywide cannot reasonably foresee being haled into court in a state where it did not purposefully direct its activities … . Repwest Ins. Co. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06505, First Dept 10-2-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TERRITORY OF COVERAGE CLAUSE (INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURER OF NEW YORK DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING A U-HAUL VEHICLE IN NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NORTH CAROLINA TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION IN A NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NEW YORK ACTION SEEKING DOMESTICATION OF A NORTH CAROLINA DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the products liability and negligence causes of action against the manufacturer of a motorcycle helmet properly survived summary judgment. There are two parts to securing the helmet with a strap—a D-ring fastener and a snap. Plaintiff used only the snap and was injured, allegedly as a result of the failure of the helmet to protect him. The court noted that plaintiff's untimely response to the defendants motion for summary judgment was properly considered because defendants' were able to reply to it and the demonstration of prejudice was insufficient:

The court correctly rejected defendants' contention that the danger of failing to secure the helmet with the D-rings was open and obvious as a matter of law and that therefore it did not render the helmet unfit for its intended use and they had no duty to warn of the danger or to design the helmet differently. That a danger is open and obvious does not preclude a design defect claim … . Defendants similarly failed to establish that the design of the chin strap did not breach their warranties of fitness and merchantability … .

While there is no duty to warn of a hazard that is open and obvious and “readily apparent as a matter of common sense” … , the record presents issues of fact as to whether the danger of failing to use the D-rings and using only the snap fastener to secure the helmet is open and obvious … . Narvaez v Wadsworth, 2018 NY Slip Op 06475, First Dept 10-2-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/WARN, FAILURE TO (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/MOTORCYCLE HELMET (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/HELMET ​(PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT)/WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that complete disclosure of a supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) file should not have been ordered in this traffic accident case. The court noted that Lalka v ACA Ins.Co., 128 AD3d 1508 (4th Dept 2015), to the extent that it held that disclosure is allowed only up to the date of commencement of an action, should no longer be followed. However, the proper procedure is the creation of a privilege log followed by in camera review:

… [D]efendant's motion for a protective order was based upon the assertion that any documents contained in the claim file after the date of commencement were materials protected from discovery. Thus, the sole issue on appeal is whether defendant met its burden of establishing that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain material that is protected from discovery. We conclude that defendant did not meet that burden.

To the extent that Lalka … holds that any documents in a claim file created after commencement of an action in a SUM case in which there has been no denial or disclaimer of coverage are per se protected from discovery, it should not be followed. Rather, a party seeking a protective order under any of the categories of protected materials in CPLR 3101 bears “the burden of establishing any right to protection” … . ” [A] court is not required to accept a party's characterization of material as privileged or confidential' “… . Ultimately, “resolution of the issue whether a particular document is . . . protected is necessarily a fact-specific determination . . . , most often requiring in camera review' ” … .

Here, we conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden inasmuch as it relied solely upon the conclusory characterizations of its counsel that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain protected material. We nonetheless further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion by ordering the production of allegedly protected documents and instead should have granted the alternative relief requested by defendant, i.e., allowing it to create a privilege log pursuant to CPLR 3122 (b) followed by an in camera review of the subject documents by the court … . Rickard v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06333, Fourth Dept 9-27-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3101, 3122  (ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM)  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/IMMUNITY  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))

AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner's affidavit and attorney affirmation constituted the equivalent of a verified petition. The motion to dismiss the Article 78 actions should not have been granted:

A verified petition is required to establish a jurisdictional predicate for a special proceeding (see CPLR 304[a]; 7804[c], [d] …). CPLR 304(a) provides that “[a] special proceeding is commenced by filing a petition.” CPLR 7804(c) provides that “a notice of petition, together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served on any adverse party at least twenty days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard.” However, a document that is not denominated a verified petition may satisfy CPLR 304 and 7804 if it is the functional equivalent of a verified petition … .

Here, none of the papers filed and served by the petitioner was denominated a verified petition. However, the petitioner's papers, particularly her affidavit and the affirmation of her attorney, gave notice as to what administrative action was being challenged, the events upon which the action was taken, the basis of the challenge, and the relief sought … . Therefore, the papers fulfilled the purposes of a verified petition and were the functional equivalent of a verified petition … . Matter of Levine v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 06242, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 304 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 7804 (AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/VERIFIED PETITION (ARTICLE 78, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should not have been consolidated with an contract action to determine an insurance-coverage obligation in the malpractice action:

… Salvatore Leone and Santa Leone (hereinafter together the Leones) commenced an action to recover damages for medical malpractice against Alvin Hershfeld and Medical Office of Howard Beach, P.C. (hereinafter together Hershfeld; hereinafter the malpractice action). … Hershfeld commenced the instant action against JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc. (hereinafter JM Woodworth), seeking a declaration that JM Woodworth was obligated to defend and/or indemnify Hershfeld in the malpractice action, and to recover damages for breach of contract, and also named the Leones as defendants. * * *

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in consolidating the two actions for the purpose of a joint trial and in amending the caption accordingly. In the malpractice action, the issues involve, inter alia, the alleged negligence of Hershfeld and the alleged damages suffered by the Leones. In the instant action, the issue to be resolved is JM Woodworth's alleged contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage to Hershfeld in the malpractice action. The two actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602[a]…). Moreover, a joint trial of the two actions could result in substantial prejudice to JM Woodworth. Indeed, it has long been recognized that it is inherently prejudicial to insurers to have the issue of insurance coverage tried before the jury that considers the underlying liability claims, even where common questions of law and fact exist … . Hershfeld v JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06229, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 602  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER’S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that legal documents, bills for legal services, and an insurance carrier's file were not subject to disclosure. All the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or conditional immunity. The underlying medical malpractice action was against defendant Louis Lasky Memorial Medical and Dental Center and defendant Frederick Ast. The documents were requested by Ast in a proceeding to determine the amount of the settlement to be attributed to Louis Lasky and Ast:

With respect to the files maintained by Louis Lasky's attorneys, the only documents contained therein that have not already been disclosed are absolutely protected by CPLR 3101(b) and (c), as they are “primarily and predominately legal in nature and, in their full content and context, were made to render legal advice or services” to Louis Lasky … . Regarding the legal bills, it was improper for the court to order Louis Lasky to produce unredacted copies because such disclosure would reveal factual investigation and legal work done by counsel, which is privileged material … . As for the insurance carrier's file, the court correctly concluded that this file is protected by a conditional immunity, as it contained material prepared for litigation … . However, the court erred in finding that Ast met his burden of demonstrating that he had a “substantial need” for the materials in the carrier's file, and that he could not obtain their “substantial equivalent” by other means “without undue hardship” (CPLR 3101[d] …). Teran v Ast, 2018 NY Slip Op 06288, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITY, DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3101  (DISCLOSURE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (INSURER'S FILE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (DISCLOSURE, INSURER'S FILE, ATTORNEYS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER'S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT COULD NOT BRING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED BY SERVICE OF AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a defendant who has not yet served an answer cannot move for summary judgment:

A motion for summary judgment may only be made after joinder of issue (see CPLR 3212[a]). Where, as here, it is conceded that the defendant had not served an answer before moving for summary judgment, issue was not joined and the defendant was precluded from obtaining summary judgment … . The requirement that a motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined (see CPLR 3212[a]) “is strictly adhered to” … . Cremosa Food Co., LLC v Amella, 2018 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT COULD NOT BRING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED BY SERVICE OF AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3212 (DEFENDANT COULD NOT BRING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED BY SERVICE OF AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (DEFENDANT COULD NOT BRING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED BY SERVICE OF AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a party who has been granted a preliminary injunction must give an undertaking, although the amount is within the court’s discretion:

The plaintiff commenced this action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real property in Queens. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, inter alia, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or encumbering the subject property. In an order entered March 17, 2015, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In the order appealed from, the court determined that an undertaking was not required. The defendants appeal.

“[U]pon the granting of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff shall give an undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court'” (…CPLR 6312[b]). Thus, “[w]hile fixing the amount of an undertaking when granting a motion for a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, CPLR 6312(b) clearly and unequivocally requires the party seeking an injunction to give an undertaking” … . Chao-Yu C. Huang v Shih, 2018 NY Slip Op 06075, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 6321 (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/UNDERTAKING (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/INJUNCTION, PRELIMINARY (UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, UNDERTAKING, PLAINTIFF WAS GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING IS WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETION, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner's challenge to the city water bills was properly deemed time-barred. Petitioner argued that the city should be estopped from taking advantage of the four-year statute because of a delay in correcting an inaccurate bill:

The petitioner's contention that DEP and the Water Board should be estopped from applying the four-year limitations period is without merit. ” The doctrine of estoppel will be applied against governmental agencies only in exceptional cases'” … , such as where there is fraud, misrepresentation, or other affirmative misconduct upon which the other party relies to its detriment… . “Generally, the doctrine of estoppel is not available against a governmental agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties, even when the results are harsh” … . Here, the Water Board was performing its statutory duties in, inter alia, establishing, charging, collecting, and enforcing payment for the use of the water and sewer systems (see Public Authorities Law § 1045-f[9]). Although an error had been made resulting in the petitioner being over-billed from June 2000 to April 2015, DEP corrected the error and credited the accounts of the 10 subject properties to the extent allowable under applicable law and the Water Board's rate schedule …. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any improper conduct on the part of DEP or the Water Board that would warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel. Matter of Maimonides Med. Ctr. v New York City Water Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 06094, Second Dept 9-19-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))/WATER BILLS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESTOPPEL, CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT))

RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation-back doctrine should have been applied to allow plaintiff to add a party to the Labor Law 200 and 241 (6) complaint after the statute of limitations had run:

On October 15, 2007, the plaintiff, a construction worker, allegedly was injured while performing demolition work on the roof of a condominium building in Brooklyn. In December 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action against A.T.A. Construction Corp. (hereinafter A.T.A.), the general contractor for the construction project, and Park Slope Condominium (hereinafter Park Slope), the alleged owner of the subject building. The complaint asserted causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6).

In June 2014, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend his complaint to add Flan Realty, LLC (hereinafter Flan), as a defendant in the action. * * *

…[T]he claims against Flan arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claims asserted against Park Slope. In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated that, under the particular circumstances presented, Park Slope and Flan are united in interest inasmuch as the two entities, “intentionally or not, often blurred the distinction between them” … . Moreover, Flan had notice of this action within the applicable limitations period, inasmuch as the Flancraichs jointly operated both Park Slope and Flan, and Flan was designated in the condominium declaration to receive service of process on behalf of Park Slope … .Finally, the plaintiff demonstrated that the initial failure to add Flan was not intentional, but was the result of an excusable mistake … . Uddin v A.T.A. Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06135, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) ACTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ADD A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy