You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff staffing agency was not entitled to a preliminary injunction in this action to enforce a restrictive covenant which ostensibly prohibited defendant, for a period of time, from working at the hospital where plaintiff had placed him. Defendant had terminated his contract with plaintiff, contracted with a competitor staffing agency, and continued to work at the same hospital. Defendant demonstrated the alternatives to working at the same hospital would either require a 3 to 4 hour commute, or result in his not working at all while he renewed his credentials in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleged allowing defendant to continue to work at the hospital would damage its business model and lead to competitors taking away contracts. The Fourth Department noted that the harm to plaintiff would only occur if the court rules in its favor, not during the pendency of the action:

It is well settled that ” [p]reliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy [that] is not routinely granted’ ” … . Moreover, “[i]n reviewing an order denying a motion for [a] preliminary injunction, we should not determine finally the merits of the action and should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by [the court] but should review only the determination of whether that discretion has been abused” …

“In order to establish its entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunction must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, . . . three separate elements: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld; and (3) a balance of equities tipping in the moving party’s favor’ ” … . Delphi Hospitalist Servs. LLC v Patrick, 2018 NY Slip Op 05100, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO  WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO  WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO  WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO  WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the dismissal, by a Referee, of the petition brought seeking joint custody of children born to respondent, with whom petitioner had had a romantic relationship, on the basis of an agreement that petitioner and respondent would raise the children as a family. The court noted that a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 4401 for failure to make out a prima facie case can not take into account credibility determinations:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking joint custody of, and visitation with, the five subject children, all of whom were born to respondent and conceived by the implantation of fertilized eggs. With respect to her standing to commence this proceeding, petitioner alleged that she and respondent had previously been involved in a romantic relationship, and that they entered into an agreement to raise and co-parent the child that was alive when the parties met. Petitioner further alleged that, prior to the conception of the younger four children, the parties also agreed that respondent would conceive additional children and the parties would jointly raise them as a family. The Referee granted a hearing on the issue of petitioner’s standing to seek custody of the children, at which petitioner’s testimony was consistent with the petition. … At the conclusion of petitioner’s case, the Referee granted respondent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the petition. …

… “[I]n determining a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must be accepted as true and given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom . . . The question of credibility is irrelevant, and should not be considered” … .

Here, the Referee made credibility determinations and weighed the probative value of the evidence in making a determination on the motion to dismiss. Consequently, we reverse the order, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Family Court to determine, after a full hearing, whether petitioner, by clear and convincing evidence, has established with respect to the four younger children that she “has agreed with the biological parent of the child[ren] to conceive and raise [them] as co-parents” … , and whether, despite being a “partner without such an agreement [she] can establish standing” with respect to the older child … . Matter of deMarc v Goodyear, 2018 NY Slip Op 05095, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

FAMILY LAW (PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT)))CIVIL PROCEDURE (PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 4401  (PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT))/STANDING (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A POLICE OFFICER SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS BECAUSE THE OFFICER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE UNION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court exceeded its authority when it vacated an arbitration award and the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the police officer (Lee) seeking Municipal Law 207-c benefits in another arbitration proceeding handled by a union lawyer:

Lee established that the court failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over her in the proceeding to confirm the arbitration award … because the City never properly served her … . Nor did the court acquire personal jurisdiction over Lee by the unauthorized appearance of the Union’s attorney “on behalf of Katherine Lee.” Contrary to the City’s contention, there is no evidence that Lee expressly or implicitly authorized the Union’s attorney to represent her at any stage of the proceedings. …

We further conclude that the court erred in sua sponte vacating its prior order and judgment, which confirmed the arbitration award … , and directing further arbitration. … A court has authority to “vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . That authority, however, is not unlimited… . “A court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgments is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud,] mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … .

In vacating the order and judgment, … the court “exceeded the narrow bounds within which courts are authorized to alter [arbitration] awards” … . None of the bases in CPLR 7511 (b) or (c) for vacating or modifying an arbitration award applies to the arbitrator’s failure to award the City a specific dollar amount for the value of benefits received by Lee, and the court had no power to disturb the award apart from the grounds set forth in those subdivisions  … . Matter of City of Syracuse (Lee), 2018 NY Slip Op 05077, Third Dept 7-6-18

​ARBITRATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A POLICE OFFICER SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS BECAUSE THE OFFICER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE UNION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A POLICE OFFICER SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS BECAUSE THE OFFICER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE UNION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A POLICE OFFICER SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS BECAUSE THE OFFICER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE UNION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION,  COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A POLICE OFFICER SEEKING MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS BECAUSE THE OFFICER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE UNION ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff, who alleged he was punched in the face by defendant bar’s employee (Bonawitz), properly pled causes of action against the bar for negligent hiring and supervision, as well as vicarious liability. Although vicarious liability requires the employee to be acting within the scope of his employment, and a negligent hiring and supervision cause of action requires that the employee act outside the scope of employment, pleading inconsistent theories in the alternative is allowed. The court noted that the “breach of the duty to keep the premises safe” cause of action was properly dismissed because it constituted an attempt to plead vicarious liability for an intentional tort as negligence to avoid the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts:

The second cause of action alleges that the employer defendants negligently hired and supervised Bonawitz. Supreme Court dismissed this cause of action based on cases holding that, “[g]enerally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable under the theory of respondent superior, and the plaintiff may not proceed with a claim to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training” … . The rationale for this rule “is that if the employee was not negligent, there is no basis for imposing liability on the employer, and if the employee was negligent, the employer must pay the judgment regardless of the reasonableness of the hiring or retention or the adequacy of the training” … . As is apparent from these cases, however, this rule applies where the employee is alleged to have acted negligently, not intentionally.

Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the employer defendants negligently hired, supervised and retained Bonawitz even though they knew or should have known of his propensity to assault or intentionally inflict harm on others … . Moreover, the negligence of an employer is not transformed into intentional conduct simply because the employee’s wrongful conduct was intentional … . Thus, plaintiff’s allegations of negligence were timely asserted within the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [5] …).

Plaintiff did not directly allege that Bonawitz was acting within the scope of his employment when he punched plaintiff. Even if such allegations were included, allegations of vicarious liability, though incompatible with a claim of negligent hiring and supervision, do not require dismissal because a plaintiff may plead inconsistent theories in the alternative … . McCarthy v Mario Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05006, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, INTENTIONAL TORTS, ,EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 214 (STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, INTENTIONAL TORTS, ,EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against her school based upon bullying and harassment should not have been denied. Before plaintiff turned 18, her father made a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim which was denied because of improper service. When plaintiff turned 18 she made the motion on her own behalf. Because the statute of limitations was tolled until plaintiff turned 18 (CPLR 208) her motion was timely. The Third Department determined the school had timely notice of the claim, plaintiff had introduced some evidence the school would not be prejudiced, meeting her burden, and the school’s demonstration of prejudice was speculative and otherwise inadequate:

Here, our review of the record reveals that defendant had actual knowledge of the alleged harassment, intimidation and bullying within a reasonable time … .

… [P]laintiff was initially required to “present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice”… . She did so by submitting the … evidence that defendant knew of plaintiff’s claims and was able to investigate at least one of the incidents shortly after it occurred, as well as screen images taken from defendant’s website indicating that relevant school officials were still employed at the time of the motion. …

The burden thus shifted to defendant “to rebut [plaintiff’s] showing with particularized evidence” … . In this regard, defendant’s counsel asserted by affirmation that the incidents were no longer fresh in witnesses’ memories as a result of the passage of time and that any witnesses “would likely be children” who might have graduated or whose memories might have faded … . However, a finding of substantial prejudice “cannot be based solely on speculation and inference; rather, a determination of substantial prejudice must be based on evidence on the record” … . Sherb v Monticello Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05004, Third Dept 7-5-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TOLLING PROVISION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 208 (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TOLLING PROVISION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidentiary ruling in a prior appeal was not the law of the case and plaintiff’s attempt to introduce the same type of evidence in the subsequent trial should have been considered on the merits:

This matter comes before us for a fourth time … . In our most recent decision, we affirmed that part of an order of Supreme Court which, after granting a mistrial, precluded plaintiff from offering evidence of prior accidents in a second trial … . Thereafter, plaintiff again moved to admit evidence of prior similar accidents or, in the alternative, for a hearing on the application. Supreme Court denied the motion, effectively concluding that our prior decision constitutes law of the case. Plaintiff now appeals.

We reverse. The underlying motion in limine speaks to an evidentiary ruling and the law of the case doctrine generally speaks to questions of law, not discretionary rulings of the court … . That said, we are mindful that “‘[a]n appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [and] operates to foreclose reexamination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law'”… .

Although defendants contend otherwise, our previous decision was not a definitive ruling as to whether the conditions underlying the prior accidents that plaintiff seeks to admit were substantially similar to the accident at issue. To the contrary, we simply determined that the limited offer of proof that plaintiff then made was inadequate … . As such, the subject motion should have been addressed on the merits … . O’Buckley v County of Chemung, 2018 NY Slip Op 05003, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, LAW OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (APPEALS, LAW OF THE CASE, ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (EVIDENCE, LAW OF THE CASE, ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASES (APPEALS, EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Office of Victim Services (OVS) properly paid out the assets of an incarcerated offender to the first crime victim to obtain a judgment. The statute does not provide for retaining assets for other crime victims who may subsequently obtain a judgment against the offender:

“Executive Law § 632—a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime” …  by “allow[ing] crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source” and protecting those funds while litigation is pending … . …

There is no doubt that OVS complied with its express obligations under the statute. The problem is that the statute provides no guidance as to how OVS is to respond where, as here, multiple crime victims seek to recover and the preserved assets of a convicted person are inadequate … . OVS viewed its response to be governed by the general rule that, “[w]here two or more . . . orders affecting the same interest in personal property or debt are filed, the proceeds of the property or debt shall be applied in the order of filing,” and acted to have the preserved assets released to satisfy the first judgment obtained by a victim (CPLR 5234 [c]). …

The Legislature could have easily included language in Executive Law § 632-a that substituted a special rule of priority for the one set forth in CPLR 5234 (c), directed OVS to leave any provisional remedies in place until all victims had obtained judgments or created some mechanism for dividing the preserved assets between them. It did not do so, and “‘[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit'” … . Waldman v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05000, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CRIME VICTIMS (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER,  EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (OVS) (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 5234 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered when plaintiff did not appear at the argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. Plaintiff’s attorney’s illness was a reasonable excuse. The court noted that, although only one motion to vacate a default judgment is usually allowed, because Supreme Court denied the first motion “without prejudice” the second motion on the same grounds was not precluded:

… [T]he plaintiff’s excuse that its attorney failed to appear at oral argument due to illness, which excuse was corroborated by medical documentation, was reasonable under the circumstances presented … .. In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to [defendant’s] motion … .

A party ordinarily is precluded from making a second motion to vacate a default on the same ground raised in a prior motion to vacate the default … . However, because the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s first motion to vacate “without prejudice,” the plaintiff was not precluded from making a second motion to vacate its default on the same grounds raised in its prior motion. World O World Corp. v Anoufrieva, 2018 NY Slip Op 05075, Second Dept 7-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015  (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT  (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/WITHOUT PREJUDICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home’s motion to vacate a default judgment, made more than a year after the default judgment, should not have been granted. The nursing home did not offer a reasonable excuse:

A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . “Such motion must be made within one year after service of a copy of the . . . order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party'” . “[A]lthough the Supreme Court has the inherent authority to vacate an order in the interest of justice even where the statutory one-year period under CPLR 5015(a)(1) has expired”… , here, the nursing home failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order … . In any event, the nursing home’s claim that its failure to appear or answer the complaint was caused by an internal mishandling of the pleadings was unsubstantiated and insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for its default … . Hairston v Marcus Garvey Residential Rehab Pavilion, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 7-5-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT)).DEFAULT JUDGMENT ( MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT))

ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3O2 (a)(3)(ii) stems from tortious acts which occur in New York, not financial effects felt in New York, and due process requires that an out-of-state defendant have minimum contacts with New York. Neither requirement was met here:

A plaintiff relying on CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) must show that (1) the defendant committed a tortious act outside New York; (2) the cause of action arose from that act; (3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York; (4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences in New York; and (5) the defendant derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce … . In New York, “the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred” … .

Here, the “original critical events” giving rise to plaintiff’s injury were the 2012 and 2015 Transfers. As those transfers occurred outside of New York and did not involve New York assets, the situs of injury was not in New York… . That plaintiff felt economic injury in New York, alone, is an insufficient basis to confer jurisdiction. …

Furthermore, even if the elements of CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) have been met, asserting personal jurisdiction would not comport with due process … . To comport with due process, “[t]here must also be proof that the out-of-state defendant has the requisite minimum contacts’ with the forum state and that the prospect of defending a suit here comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,'” … . The “minimum contacts” requirement is satisfied where “a defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State’ are such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there'” … . Under the “effects test” theory of personal jurisdiction, where the conduct that forms the basis for the plaintiff’s claims takes place entirely out of forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are the harmful effects suffered by the plaintiff, a court must inquire whether the defendant “expressly aimed” its conduct at the forum … . Here, defendants did not expressly aim their tortious conduct at New York, and the foreseeability that the alleged fraudulent conveyances would injure plaintiff in New York is insufficient … . Deutsche Bank AG v Vik, 2018 NY Slip Op 04958, First Dept 7-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/PERSONAL JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CPLR 302, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/TORTIOUS ACTS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/MINIMUM CONTACTS  (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/DUE PROCESS (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))

Categories

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

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

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