You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not submit admissible proof that defendant was in default. The evidence did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that a nonparty’s motion to intervene was properly denied as untimely and the Judiciary Law 489 affirmative defense was properly struck. Judiciary Law 489 prohibits buying another’s debt for the purpose of bringing a court action, but debts exceeding $500,000 are exempt. The debts purchased here exceeded $500,000:

The determination to deny Fulton Holdings’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was a provident exercise of discretion. “Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion” … . Here, Fulton Holdings’ motion was not timely, as it was not made until approximately 14 months after Fulton Holdings had notice that the foreclosure action was pending … . …

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence of default in admissible form. To evince the mortgagor’s default, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Igor Fleyshmakher, the plaintiff’s managing member, and Frank Quintana, the president of 179 Court Street Holding Corp. (hereinafter 179 Court), a prior holder of the mortgage. Fleyshmakher and Quintana both attested to the date of the last payment allegedly received on the mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, of any records relied upon by Fleyshmakher and Quintana (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana laid a foundation for, or even identified, the records upon which they relied. Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor 179 Court acquired its interest in the mortgage until after the alleged default date. Thus, neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana could have established the loan’s payment history up to and including the date of default by relying on their respective employers’ records. Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana asserted that they consulted or relied on the records of 179 Court’s predecessor-in-interest. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the mortgagor’s default … . Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 07096, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (JUDICIARY LAW 489, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY 489 FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurance  policy was properly authenticated and the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the property damage at issue and dismissed the complaint:

The insurance policy submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficiently authenticated by the sworn affidavit of defendant’s president, who stated that, based upon his review of defendant’s files, defendant’s proffer was a “full and complete copy” of the insurance policy issued to plaintiffs … .

… [W]e find that the terms of the policy conclusively refute plaintiffs’ claim that defendant is obligated to cover the structural damage caused to their barn by Calhoun’s operation of their tractor and hay baler. By its unambiguous terms, the policy insured plaintiffs only against direct physical loss caused to the barn by 11 specifically delineated perils. Accepting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true and affording them the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the alleged cause of the structural damage here — the tractor and hay baler “br[ea]k[ing] through the barn floor” — does not fall under one of the covered perils. The section of the policy cited by plaintiffs as providing coverage is inapplicable, as that section applies solely to liability insurance coverage arising out of third-party claims made against plaintiffs. Accordingly, as the insurance policy conclusively disposes of plaintiffs’ claim, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) should have been granted and the complaint dismissed … . Calhoun v Midrox Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07024, Third Dept 10-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

, , , ,

REVERSING SUPREME COURT THE THIRD DEPT NOTED THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION AND DID SO IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN IN THIS ZONING AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this zoning and building code violation case should not have been dismissed by the court sua sponte, and the court should not have awarded summary judgment to the defendant property owner. The Third Department noted that summary judgment may be awarded on an upleaded cause of action in the absence of prejudice and awarded summary judgment in favor of the town (plaintiff):

… [P]laintiff established the material facts through an affidavit by its Code and Zoning Enforcement Officer, who detailed the zoning and building code violations found on defendant’s property and averred that defendant had not remedied them after being served with orders to do so. The statements in the affidavit were corroborated by documentary and photographic evidence, and defendant submitted no opposition that might have raised material questions of fact. Supreme Court correctly observed that the complaint did not name a cause of action or identify the legal basis for the relief requested, and plaintiff’s motion papers suffered from the same problem. Plaintiff now points to authority for the relief sought by it (see Executive Law § 382 [3]; Village Law § 7-714 …), however, and summary judgment may be granted on an unpleaded cause of action “where the proof supports such a cause of action and the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice” … . The evidence substantiates plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought — relief that plaintiff has consistently sought and was narrowed in its notice of motion for summary judgment — and there is no indication that defendant was prejudiced by the failure to identify the statutes authorizing it sooner. Thus, we grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remit so that Supreme Court may fashion an appropriate remedial order. Village of Sharon Springs v Barr, 2018 NY Slip Op 07022, Third Dept 10-18-19

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a motion for leave to amend the complaint should have been granted and explained the criteria:

CPLR 3025 (b) provides generally that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given.” “[T]he rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, ‘[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . Here, the proposed amendment does not change the theory of recovery, but seeks to further develop facts supporting plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of contract. In addition, plaintiff did not delay in seeking the amendment and, given that the amendment is confined to matters that were in the original complaint, there is no prejudice to defendant … . In view of the foregoing, leave to amend the complaint should have been granted. Gulfstream Anesthesia Consultants, P.A. v Cortland Regional Med. Ctr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07018, Third Dept 10-18-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINT, MOTION TO AMEND (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Where, as here, the note has been endorsed in blank, the purported holder of the note must establish its standing by demonstrating that the original note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2]…). The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing through the affidavit of Jonathan Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., the purported servicing agent for the plaintiff. Manko averred that he reviewed all of the documents attached to his affidavit and “authenticate[d] them as coming directly from the loan file at issue herein and kept in the ordinary course of business.” Manko averred that this action was commenced on December 30, 2010, and at that time, the plaintiff was in possession of the original note and mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Manko relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., did not attest that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Selig, 2018 NY Slip Op 06874, Second Dept 10-17-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted defendant’s summary judgment in this action on a promissory note. The agreement at issue was an illegal contract involving a fee-splitting arrangement between physicians and non-physicians which is prohibited by the Education Law:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover the balance due on the promissory note and for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, and, upon searching the record, to award the defendants summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence submitted by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that the agreement and the promissory note were a pretext for an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement in violation of the Education Law because they circumvented New York’s prohibition on physicians splitting fees with nonphysicians (see Education Law §§ 6509-a, 6530[19] … ). “It is the settled law of this State (and probably of every other State) that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him [or her] carry out his [or her] illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he [or she], as a basis for his [or her] claim, must show forth his [or her] illegal purpose” … . “Where the parties’ arrangement is illegal the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them'” … . Linchitz Practice Mgt., Inc. v Daat Med. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06891, Second Dept 10-17-18

CONTRACT LAW (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/PHYSICIANS (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/FEE-SPLITTING (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants demonstrated the storm in progress rule insulated them from liability in this snow and ice sidewalk slip and fall case because the slip and fall occurred less than four hours after the precipitation stopped. The motion to renew was properly denied because the newly submitted evidence did not call into question the applicability of the four-hour rule:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-123(a), which requires building owners to clear ice and snow from an abutting sidewalk within four hours after the snow ceases to fall, excluding the hours between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., they had no duty to clear the sidewalk until 10:20 a.m., which was several hours after the plaintiff’s accident. The plaintiff moved, in effect, for leave to renew and reargue her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In support of that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of a former employee of the defendants who witnessed the accident. The plaintiff argued that she was unable to present this evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment because the defendants deliberately delayed disclosing the identity of the witness until just before they made that motion. …

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion”… . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The newly submitted evidence would not have changed the prior determination … . The new facts relied on, consisting of the deposition testimony of the defendants’ former employee, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a duty to clear the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff’s accident or whether they created or exacerbated a dangerous condition by engaging in negligent snow removal efforts. Ghoneim v Vision Enters. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06884. Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS RULE  (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (MOTION TO RENEW, SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to serve an amended notice of claim as a late notice of claim in this pedestrian accident case was properly denied. The original notice of claim alleged inadequate street lighting prevented the defendant driver from seeing the infant plaintiff. The amended notice of claim purported to add theories of liability and purported to add mother’s derivative claim. Mother’s claim could not be added because the infancy toll of the statute of limitations did not apply to her:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim that described the infant plaintiff’s injuries as arising from any negligence on the part of the Town other than that related to the nonfunctioning street lights, as described in the original notice of claim … . The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the infancy of one of the plaintiffs and the delay … . Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that, within 90 days after the accident or a reasonable time thereafter, the Town acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim that it was negligent with respect to anything other than the street lights… . The plaintiffs also failed to establish that the Town would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay … .

The proposed amended notice of claim with respect to the mother’s derivative claim is time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the plaintiffs moved to serve a late notice of claim, and the toll for infancy pursuant to CPLR 208 does not apply to a parent’s derivative cause of action … .

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim. A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability … . The proposed amendments to the notice of claim added new theories of liability related to the Town’s ownership, operation, control, design, planning, study, retention, supervision, maintenance, repair, inspection, and management of the street and sidewalks on Swalm Street. Such amendments are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Palacios v Town of N. Hempstead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06927, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM  (MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 208 (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this dental malpractice case. The doctrine may apply to one of the dentists (Gold) who retired by imputing to him the continued treatment by other dentists:

“Treatment” does not necessarily terminate upon the last visit, if further care or monitoring of the condition is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient, as manifested by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . Thus, “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment'” … . Even the monitoring of an abnormal condition may be sufficient to support the application of the continuous treatment toll … . The critical inquiry is not whether the defendant failed to make a diagnosis or undertake a course of treatment during the period of limitation, but whether the plaintiff continued to seek treatment for the same or related conditions giving rise to his or her claim of malpractice, during that period… . Accordingly, a defendant cannot defeat the application of the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a correct diagnosis as to the underlying condition, if the defendant treated the plaintiff continuously over the relevant time period for symptoms that are ultimately traced to that condition … .

Here, the plaintiff does not claim merely that the moving defendant failed to diagnose her condition and treat her for it … . Rather, she alleged that between 2009 and 2015, she was treated continuously for symptoms ultimately traced to abnormal and severe periodontal disease. Both the plaintiff’s affidavit and her expert’s affidavit, which referred to numerous specific notations in the plaintiff’s dental records, raised triable issues of fact as to whether a course of treatment for periodontal disease was established and therefore the continuous treatment doctrine would apply to toll the statute of limitations … . Cohen v Gold, 2018 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the language of a mortgage loan purchase and warranties agreement (MLPWA) did not postpone the accrual of a breach of contract cause of action and, therefore, the statute of limitations had expired. This is another case arising out of the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities which were supported by allegedly defective mortgage loans that did not comply with the representations and warranties in the agreement:

… [P]laintiff did not dispute that the representations and warranties made by defendant in the MLPWA were effective as of the closing date. Instead, plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations had yet to lapse, relying upon a provision in the MLPWA that it refers to as the “accrual clause,” which states as follows: “Any cause of action against the Seller relating to or arising out of the breach of any representations and warranties made in Subsections 9.01 and 9.02 shall accrue as to any Mortgage Loan upon (i) discovery of such breach by the Purchaser or notice thereof by the Seller to the Purchaser, (ii) failure by the Seller to cure such breach, substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan or repurchase such Mortgage Loan as specified above and (iii) demand upon the Seller by the Purchaser for compliance with this Agreement.” …

In New York, the default accrual rule for breach of contract causes of action is that the cause of action accrues when the contract is breached … . “[E]xcept in cases of fraud where the statute expressly provides otherwise, the statutory period of limitations begins to run from the time when liability for wrong has arisen even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury”… . This Court has “repeatedly rejected accrual dates which cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, in favor of a bright line approach,” and for that reason, we do not “apply the discovery rule to statutes of limitations in contract actions” … . “To extend the highly exceptional discovery notion to general breach of contract actions would effectively eviscerate the Statute of Limitations in this commercial dispute arena” … . * * *

… [General Obligations Law 17-103] requires an agreement to extend the statute of limitations to be made “after accrual of the cause of action,” and it allows extension of the limitations period only for, at most, the time period that would apply if the cause of action had accrued on the date of the agreement, i.e., six years from the date that the agreement was made if the limitations period is six years … . An agreement to extend the statute of limitations that does not comply with these requirements “has no effect” … . In addition, CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement,” and “[n]o court shall extend the time limited by law for the commencement of an action.” Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Flagstar Capital Mkts., 2018 NY Slip Op 06851, CtApp 10-16-18

CONTRACT LAW (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACT LAW, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))

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