You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the jury verdict finding the will offered by petitioner had been duly executed was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The will was handwritten by petitioner, not decedent, three days before his death. The decedent, who was terminally ill, had moved to petitioner’s family-type adult home only three weeks before his death. One attesting witness had worked at the home for 28 years. The other attesting witness had lived at the home for seven years and was petitioner’s friend:

A verdict may be set aside as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence where “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … .. A jury verdict may be found to be against the weight of the evidence “where the proof so preponderated in favor of the unsuccessful party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . * * *

Upon this record, we cannot find legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding that the will had been duly executed … . Further, the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Matter of Fraccaro, 2018 NY Slip Op 03198, Third Dept 5-3-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/WILLS (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the inmate-petitioner’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, based upon an incident in the county jail, could not relate back to petitioner’s first (pro se) attempt to file a late notice of claim. Petitioner’s first attempt was sent to the court clerk as opposed to the county clerk. The court clerk returned the papers and instructed the petitioner to send them to the county clerk. Nothing further was done by the petitioner until an attorney was assigned and the statute of limitations had passed. The relation-back doctrine could not be applied because the failure to file the original papers with the county clerk was a jurisdictional defect:

… [W]here an action to enforce a claim has not yet been commenced, a party seeking to make an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim should commence a special proceeding in the Supreme Court or the County Court in a county where the action may be properly brought to trial (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [7]…). A special proceeding is commenced by the filing of initiatory papers with the County Clerk in the county in which the special proceeding is brought or with any other person designated by the County Clerk to accept filing… . While the Supreme Court or the County Court may convert an improperly brought motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim into a special proceeding … , the failure to file the application with the appropriate clerk — the County Clerk — is a fatal defect that may not be overlooked or corrected by the court pursuant to CPLR 2001… . Indeed, the filing of initiatory papers with the Clerk of the Supreme and County Courts, rather than the County Clerk, “has been equated to a nonfiling and, thus, ‘a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect rendering the proceeding a nullity'” … . Matter of Dougherty v County of Greene, 2018 NY Slip Op 03192, Third Dept 5-3-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW,  INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF CLAIM, RELATION BACK, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))/COUNTY CLERK (FILING LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT))

,

FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, in a matter of first impression, determined that federal law, the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA), preempted New York’s Insurance Law section 3420(d)(2). Therefore defendant foreign risk retention group (RRG) [Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC (PCIC)], did not need to comply with the timely notice of disclaimer requirement of Insurance Law 3420(d)(2). Plaintiff general contractor, Nadkos, sued PCIC because PCIC claimed it had no duty to defend Nadkos in a construction-accident personal injury case brought by a subcontractor and PCIC had not provided the timely notice of disclaimer required by New York’s Insurance Law. The legal argument is complex and no attempt to fairly summarize it is made here:

Application of Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) to PCIC or to any other RRG would directly or indirectly regulate these groups in violation of 15 USC § 3902(a)(1). Section 3420(d)(2) alters the rights and obligations of the carrier and insured under the policy by creating additional rights for the injured party, that is not contemplated by the LRRA and not required by all other states. …

This heightened standard requirement in New York impairs an RRG’s ability to operate on a nationwide basis “without being compelled to tailor their policies to the specific requirements of every state in which they do business”… . As Congress has chosen to limit the power of nondomiciliary states to regulate RRGs, the LRRA clearly preempts Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2). Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03242, First Dept 5-3-18

​INSURANCE LAW (FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/PREEMPTION (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG)  (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDAN

, ,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, over a two-justice partial dissent, upheld the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) determinations regarding snowmobile trails in newly added portions of the Adirondack Park. Because approval of the trails was still subject to permits and variances, two of petitioners’ causes of action were deemed not ripe for review. The Third Department determined there was no conflict between the Rivers System Act and the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. The Rivers System Act was deemed to control and the act allowed the proposed snowmobile traffic as a continuation of an existing use. And the Third Department held that a 2009 “guidance” document for the siting of snowmobile trails adopted by the DEC did not commit the DEC to a definite course of future action. Concerning the “ripeness” issue, the court wrote:

… [P]ermits and variances must be obtained through further administrative action before the proposed uses may be established. Specifically, permits are required to erect a bridge over a scenic river …  or to construct a trail within a scenic river area … . Moreover, variances are required for the use of motorized vehicles within scenic river areas … , and for construction of a Class II snowmobile trail, to the extent that it may exceed the maximum trail width of four feet that is permitted by regulation … . Permit and variance applications are governed by the Uniform Procedures Act … , which imposes conditions related to the substantive relief sought and provides the opportunity for further public participation. No permit or variance may be granted unless the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Rivers System Act … , and conditions may be imposed as necessary to preserve and protect affected river resources or to assure compliance with the Rivers System Act … . Moreover, there is an opportunity for public comment on applications for a permit or a variance …  and the granting of a permit or variance may be challenged through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Thus, inasmuch as the harms upon which the first and second causes of action are based may be prevented or ameliorated by further administrative action, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the first and second causes of action are not ripe for judicial review. Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of The Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2018 NY Slip Op 03193. Third Dept 5-3-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/SNOWMOBILES (ADIRONDACK PARK, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/LAND USE (ADIRONDACK PARK, SNOWMOBILES, (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

,

COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the court, in awarding summary judgment to plaintiff, properly relied upon unsigned copies of the transcript of the deposition testimony of defendant’s witness because the defendant failed to return signed copies within 60 days and did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript (CPLR 3116(a)). Shackman v 400 E. 85th St. Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03223, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPTS, EVIDENCE, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS ( COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116(a) (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the relation-back doctrine did not apply to the attempts to amend the complaint in this Worker’s Compensation trust action. The trust was formed as self-insurance for Workers’ Compensation claims, but was determined to owe the Workers’ Compensation Board $220 million. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here.  It comprehensively addresses the criteria for amending complaints, the relation-back doctrine, the General Business Law section 350 cause of action, and the corporate alter ego (piercing the corporate veil) pleading requirements:

“[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, in 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” … . A claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit where it would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. …

Where the issue is whether a claim may be interposed against a defendant who was named as a party before the statute of limitations expired, the query is limited to whether the earlier complaint “gave notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … . …

“The relation back doctrine permits a [plaintiff] to amend a [complaint] to add a [defendant] even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the [plaintiff] can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added [defendant] is united in interest with a previously named [defendant], and (3) that the later-added [defendant] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [plaintiff] as to the later-added [defendant’s] identity, the [action] would have also been brought against him or her” … . …

The corporate veil will be pierced and liability imposed when either (1) there is complete domination of a corporation by an individual or another corporation with respect to the transaction being attacked that resulted in a fraud or wrong against the complaining party, or (2) “when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . Here, the proposed complaint alleges only that [the two entities] had common owners, officers and directors and that they shared the same office space, addresses and telephone numbers. Such allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to plead the elements required to establish alter ego liability … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03196, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PLEADING, ALTER EGO, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATE VEIL, PIERCING (PLEADING,  CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the “John Doe” defendant named in a timely filed complaint did not refer to the limited liability company named in the complaint filed after the statute of limitations had run:

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was served after the statutory limitations period had expired. Plaintiff’s claims arose on January 14, 2008. The original complaint in this action, which was filed on January 6, 2014 (just days before the six-year statute of limitations expired), did not name Stack’s LLC as a defendant, nor did it name defendant Stack’s LLC (Delaware). The amended complaint, which for the first time named Stack’s LLC (Delaware) as a defendant, was not filed until January 24, 2014 — more than a week after the statute had run. Plaintiff cannot properly rely on CPLR 1024 as a shield from the statute of limitations. Even assuming that the appellation “John Doe” referred to a corporation rather than a natural person, the complaint’s description of the John Doe defendant was not described in such a way as to fairly apprise Stack’s LLC (Delaware) that it was an intended defendant … . Thus, the inadequate description rendered the action jurisdictionally defective … . Markov v Stack’s LLC (Delaware), 2018 NY Slip Op 03238, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 1024 (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/JOHN DOE (COMPLAINTS, (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINTS  (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should have been granted;

The motion court exercised its discretion in an improvident manner in light of defendants’ demonstration that the convenience of material nonparty witnesses would be better served by the change … . Defendants submitted the affidavits of four first responders and plaintiff’s coworker, all of whom averred that they would testify as witnesses but would be inconvenienced by traveling to New York County. The accident occurred in Sullivan County, and other than one defendant’s registered principal place of business, and one of plaintiff’s physicians maintaining an office in the county, this matter has no contact with New York County (… . Plaintiff’s argument that the affidavits submitted by defendants were not sufficiently detailed is unpersuasive, and plaintiff offers nothing to rebut defendants’ assertions that his coworker, the first responders, and the sheriff who investigated the accident were material witnesses, as they averred in their affidavits … . Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that he has alleged violations of the Labor Law, and thus liability may be resolved prior to trial, is not relevant … . Taylor v Montreign Operating Co., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03222, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/WITNESSES, CONVENIENCE OF (VENUE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE  (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))

,

BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the three-year statute of limitations applies to no-fault claims against a self-insurer. The court reasoned that the self-insurance option is a creature of statute, not a contract:

We conclude that the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2), which governs disputes with respect to penalties created by statute, should control this case. There is no dispute “that it is the gravamen or essence of the cause of action that determines the applicable Statute of Limitations” … , or that a three-year limitations period applies to “an action to recover upon a liability. . . created or imposed by statute” … . Moreover, although the three-year period of limitation in “CPLR 214 (2) does not automatically apply to all causes of action in which a statutory remedy is sought” … , that condition does attach to instances in which “liability would not exist but for a statute” (id.).

The no-fault benefits in dispute are not provided by a contract with a private insurer. Instead defendant has met its statutory obligation by self-insuring. No-fault is a creature of statute … . Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03093, CtApp 5-1-18

​INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CPLR 214 (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/NO-FAULT (BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/SELF-INSURER  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))

, , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to allege there was a waiver of the requirement that the option to renew the lease be in writing. Therefore the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The motion to amend the complaint was properly denied because the amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The proposed amendment did not allege the existence of a specific agreement with the defendant. However, the motion to amend was not frivolous conduct and Supreme Court should not have awarded sanctions to defendant:

“Although a party may waive his or her rights under an agreement or decree, waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … . Moreover, with respect to the plaintiff’s allegations that [defendant’s representative] stated that the defendant would not object to the assignment [of the lease to the prospective purchaser of plaintiff’s business], subject to, inter alia, a credit check, “a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . …

The plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was palpably insufficient and devoid of merit. The plaintiff failed to allege that (1) it actually came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser six months prior to the expiration of the lease, (2) it gave the defendant notice of its intention to exercise the option within six months of the expiration of the lease, irrespective of whether it came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser, or (3) the proposed purchaser was creditworthy. …

… [T]he plaintiff’s conduct in moving for leave to amend the complaint and/or replead was not, under the circumstances, “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) … . NHD Nigani, LLC v Angelina Zabel Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03135, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SANCTIONS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy