You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the statute of limitations defense in this foreclosure action:

Supreme Court erred in sua sponte raising the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and directing the dismissal of the complaint on that ground. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which is waived by a party unless it is raised either in a responsive pleading, or by motion prior to the submission of a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3211[e]…). “A court may not take judicial notice,’ sua sponte, of the applicability of a statute of limitations if that defense has not been raised” … . Here, the defendant neither answered the complaint nor submitted a pre-answer motion which raised the statute of limitations defense. 352 Legion Funding Assoc. v 348 Riverdale, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05662, Second Dept 8-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ( JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a concurring memorandum, defined the procedure for determining whether opposing counsel can be deposed. Counsel had requested a protective order prohibiting the deposition. The matter was remanded for a ruling based upon the criteria described as follows:

… [D]efendants’ counsel has made a prima facie showing that the material sought is irrelevant and/or that the process is not calculated to lead to legitimate discovery, whether because the information sought is privileged or because the true purpose of the subpoena is solely to disqualify him.  …

… [W]e remand this matter to the motion court for further proceedings to determine whether plaintiffs have shown that the information they seek in deposing defendants’ counsel is material and necessary… , that they have a good faith basis for seeking it … , and that the information is not available from another source. Should the motion court allow the deposition to proceed, it should be without prejudice to counsel’s objection to specific questions to the extent that the answers would reveal information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery (CPLR 3101). Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v Gulf Oil, L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 05624, First Dept 8-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/PROTECTIVE ORDER (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))

NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner’s motion for leave to renew was properly denied. The context was an action by a municipal employee, a senior tree pruner, arguing that he was entitled to a hearing before termination because of his status as a member of a volunteer fire department (an “exempt firefighter”). Petitioner’s attempt to present evidence of the “exempt firefighter” status in a motion to renew was rejected:

“In general, a motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … . However, “[t]he requirement that a motion for renewal be based on new facts is a flexible one” … . The new or additional facts presented “either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court’s discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion” … . “However, in either instance, a reasonable justification’ for the failure to present such facts on the original motion must be presented” … .

” [T]he Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion'” … . A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation… .  Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable justification for his failure to present the documents relating to his status as an “exempt” firefighter in opposition to the original motion to dismiss. Matter of Serviss v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 2018 NY Slip Op 05597, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell over a discarded metal frame on village property. The court noted that the mother’s derivative cause of action was time-barred because the infancy toll of the statute of limitations did not apply to her:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the Village on behalf of the mother in her individual capacity, as the statute of limitations for her derivative cause of action had expired at the time the proceeding was commenced … . The infancy toll (see CPLR 208) is personal to the infant and does not extend to a parent’s derivative cause of action … . Matter of R.N. v Village of New Sq., 2018 NY Slip Op 05595, Second Dept 8-1-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MUNICIPAL LAW, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INFANCY TOLL (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers was properly not considered. The context was a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in a personal injury action. The evidence at issue was a supervisor’s report of injury and illness, presumably submitted to show the respondent’s awareness of petitioner’s injury. Matter of Murnane v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 05594, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case were properly denied.  Plaintiff was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred. However, defendant demonstrated that he was unable to stop because of slippery conditions:

On his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle… . However, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a nonnegligent explanation; namely, an unavoidable skidding on a snow-covered road … . …

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Here, in light of the defendant’s testimony regarding his speed and distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle just before the collision and the testimony that he immediately applied the brakes when the plaintiff’s brake lights illuminated but nonetheless was caused to skid by snowy road conditions, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could reach the conclusion that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Miller v Steinberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05585, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination action was properly dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds. Plaintiff had brought a discrimination action in federal court which was dismissed. The Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) causes of action in state court, alleging the same facts as alleged in the federal case, were therefore properly dismissed. Defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. Because the defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion to dismiss , the motion court treated it as a motion for summary judgment (before issue was joined). The court noted that defendants did not make out a prima facie case in their motion papers. Therefore the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers need not be considered. The court also explained that where there is a question about the existence of a contract, a quantum meruit cause of action may be brought and the plaintiff is not required to elect his or her remedies:

Here, the factual determinations made by the federal courts with regard to the causes of action alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII were determinative of the plaintiff’s identical claims asserted in this action pursuant to NYCHRL

CPLR 3211(c) provides, “[u]pon the hearing of a motion made under subdivision (a) or (b), either party may submit any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Whether or not issue has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.” Although the path the defendants took in moving pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) was procedurally questionable, they charted their own course in this instance. There was no need to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file additional papers because the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by failing to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any issues of fact with respect to those causes of action. Accordingly, the defendants were properly denied summary judgment, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Karimian v Time Equities, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05583, Second Dept 8-1-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (C) (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/QUANTUM MERUIT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their medical malpractice action, which had been automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, was properly denied:

The plaintiff … allegedly was injured at the time of his birth in April 1995, as a result of the defendants’ negligence. In 1997, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants … . It is undisputed that on September 26, 2003, the action was marked off the trial calendar upon the plaintiffs’ request so that the plaintiffs’ counsel could amplify the bill of particulars based on the injured plaintiff’s recent psychological evaluations. Later, the action was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. By notice of motion dated November 12, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar. * * *

Here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their more than 12-year delay in moving to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to adequately explain why it took more than 12 years from the time the action was marked off the trial calendar to ascertain the effects of the injuries that the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained at birth … . Furthermore, in light of the plaintiffs’ inactivity regarding the action during the more than 12-year period prior to moving to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants would not be prejudiced if the case were to be restored to the trial calendar, given the 20-year and 7-month delay between the date this action accrued and the date of the plaintiffs’ motion to restore … . Hagler v Southampton Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05579, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3404 (MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

FAILURE TO USE FEDERAL EXPRESS’S OVERNIGHT DELIVERY RENDERED SERVICE UNTIMELY, EVEN THOUGH SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY IF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MAILED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have deemed service by Federal Express timely. The statute, CPLR 2103 (b)(6) , states that service is effective when the papers are deposited with Federal Express for overnight delivery. Here the Federal Express weekly delivery service was used:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, CPLR 2103(b)(2) does not apply to render BAC’s motion timely since BAC did not attempt service of its motion by using “the post office or official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the state” (CPLR 2103[f][1]). Rather, BAC utilized Federal Express. CPLR 2103(b)(6) provides that “[s]ervice by overnight delivery service shall be complete upon deposit of the paper . . . into the custody of the overnight delivery service for overnight delivery” … . The record demonstrates that BAC failed to use Federal Express’s overnight delivery service, and instead deposited its papers with Federal Express on Friday for weekday delivery on Monday. Accordingly, the court should have denied BAC’s motion as untimely. Moran v BAC Field Servs. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05586, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE, FAILURE TO USE FEDERAL EXPRESS’S OVERNIGHT DELIVERY RENDERED SERVICE UNTIMELY, EVEN THOUGH SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY IF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MAILED (SECOND DEPT))/FEDERAL EXPRESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SERVICE, FAILURE TO USE FEDERAL EXPRESS’S OVERNIGHT DELIVERY RENDERED SERVICE UNTIMELY, EVEN THOUGH SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY IF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MAILED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2103 (SERVICE, FAILURE TO USE FEDERAL EXPRESS’S OVERNIGHT DELIVERY RENDERED SERVICE UNTIMELY, EVEN THOUGH SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY IF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MAILED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the instruction to follow up did not constitute a continuing course of treatment and the statute of limitations, therefore, was not tolled in this medical malpractice action. The court further found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply to defendants who were deliberately omitted from the action:

“Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 2½ year [limitations] period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment, when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'” … . Here, the plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this toll applies. The diagnostic services performed by Buscaglia were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . As to Watkins, the mere statement on the decedent’s transfer summary that the decedent should “follow-up” with “Dr. Watkins’ clinic” as an outpatient in two or three months did not evince a continued course of treatment where no follow-up appointment was actually scheduled, and the decedent thereafter received treatment at other hospitals … .

The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the relation back doctrine … . That doctrine requires the plaintiff to demonstrate, among other things, that the new defendants knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been commenced against them as well … . “When a plaintiff intentionally decides not to assert a claim against a party known to be potentially liable, there has been no mistake and the plaintiff should not be given a second opportunity to assert that claim after the limitations period has expired” … . Here, there was no showing of a mistake concerning the defendants’ identities, which would have prevented the plaintiff from commencing an action against them before the statute of limitations expired … . Yanez v Watkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 05622, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (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