You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed on the ground that a motion to substitute the representative of plaintiff’s estate was not timely made:

In October 2004, Patricia Tokar (hereinafter Patricia) commenced this action to recover damages for medical malpractice based upon treatment she received from 2000 to 2002. Patricia’s deposition was taken in September 2006 and again in August 2009, while the defendant’s deposition was taken in April 2008. A note of issue was filed in December 2009. The matter was called for trial on 12 separate occasions between 2011 and 2012. By letter dated October 19, 2012, Patricia’s attorney informed the defendant’s attorney that Patricia had died two weeks before, and that her husband, Stanley Tokar (hereinafter Stanley), would be seeking to be appointed administrator of Patricia’s estate after he completed his mourning period. In October 2014, Stanley filed a petition for letters of administration of Patricia’s estate. By order to show cause dated May 12, 2015, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint for failure to seek a timely substitution of parties on behalf of Patricia. On June 5, 2015, letters of administration were issued to Stanley, who then moved, seven days later, on June 12, 2015, pursuant to CPLR 1012, to be substituted, as administrator of Patricia’s estate, as the plaintiff in the action. The Supreme Court denied Stanley’s motion and granted the defendant’s motion … .  …

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made.” The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or defense has potential merit … .

Here, the record does not support a finding that there was a lack of diligence in the filing of the petition for Stanley to be substituted, or that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay in the appointment of Stanley as administrator, particularly since this case turns on medical records in the defendant’s possession … . Further, Stanley sufficiently demonstrated that the action has potential merit … . Moreover, there is a strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits … . ​Tokar v Weissberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 7-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not follow town code procedure when it refused to consider the review and comments submitted by the planning board in connection with area variances of lot-width requirements for a proposed subdivision. The court also noted that a declaratory judgment is not an available remedy for challenging an administrative determination:

The Town’s Zoning Code (Code) provides that “[t]he [ZBA] shall refer applications for variance requests to the Planning Board for review and comments. The Planning Board shall forward comments within 30 days of the close of a public hearing of the [ZBA]” … . Here, the Planning Board conducted a meeting on June 20, 2016, and voted to approve the relevant variances. On June 27, 2016, the ZBA held a public hearing and postponed its decision on the variance application until certain residents could comment at an upcoming July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting. At the July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting, various residents opposed the variances, and the Planning Board reversed its initial June 20, 2016 determination and voted not to approve the area variances. Thereafter, the ZBA determined that the Planning Board did not have the authority to reverse its prior determination and that the July 18, 2016 vote was null and void. The ZBA met on August 22, 2016 and voted to approve the area variances without considering the Planning Board’s July 18, 2016 review and comments.

” It is well established that [c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” … . Here, inasmuch as no ZBA public hearing took place until June 27, 2016, the June 20, 2016 action on the variance application by the Planning Board was procedurally improper … . The ZBA’s refusal to consider the procedurally compliant July 18, 2016 review and comments submitted by the Planning Board therefore violated the procedure set forth in section 302 (G) of the Code. We thus conclude that the ZBA’s grant of the area variances was “made in violation of lawful procedure [and] was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803 [3]). Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05418, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that an unpleaded affirmative defense may be successfully raised to defeat a motion for summary judgment:

Defendants allegedly embezzled over $100,000 from plaintiffs, their alleged former employers. Plaintiffs then commenced this action for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants both counterclaimed for, inter alia, slander per se and the violations of Labor Law §§ 162 (2), 191 (3), 195 (1) (a), and 195 (5). Defendant Carrie Massaro also counterclaimed for a violation of section 198 and for unpaid overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) … . * * * … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff …. raises triable issues of fact regarding their potential entitlement to the affirmative defense provided by [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii). Contrary to defendants’ contention, ” [a]n unpleaded affirmative defense may be invoked to defeat a motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Thus, although the court properly refused to dismiss the [Labor Law] section 195 (1) (a) counterclaims, the court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on those same counterclaims given plaintiffs’ potential entitlement to the affirmative defense under [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii) … . Salahuddin v Craver, 2018 NY Slip Op 05429, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FOREIGN CORPORATION MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, THE CORPORATION HAS NO PRESENT CONTACTS IN NEW YORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New York does not have jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which might be liable for contamination of plaintiffs’ property, but which has no present contacts in New York. Successor liability is a tort concept which cannot be used to gain jurisdiction over the successor corporation:

It is undisputed that defendant, a foreign corporation with no present contacts in this State, is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under either CPLR 301 or 302 (a) (see Semenetz v Sherling & Walden, Inc., 21 AD3d 1138, 1139-1140 [3d Dept 2005], affd on other grounds 7 NY3d 194 [2006]). Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that personal jurisdiction exists over defendant because it ostensibly bears successor liability for a predecessor corporation that was itself subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The 3rd Department, however, expressly rejected that jurisdictional theory in Semenetz (see id. at 1140). The “successor liability rule[s],” wrote the Semenetz court, “deal with the concept of tort liability, not jurisdiction. When and if [successor liability] is found applicable, the corporate successor would be subject to liability for the torts of its predecessor in any forum having in personam jurisdiction over the successor, but the [successor liability rules] do not and cannot confer such jurisdiction over the successor in the first instance” (id.) BRG Corp. v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05425, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

, ,

PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department the petitioners, parents of children in the East Ramapo Central School District, had standing to bring an Article 78 (mandamus) proceeding seeking to enforce the children’s constitutional right to a sound basic education, but the petition must be dismissed because mandamus lies only for mandatory, not discretionary, actions:

… [P]etitioners have sufficiently alleged a threatened harm to the children’s constitutional right to receive a sound basic education based upon respondents’ alleged failure to take corrective action as identified in the petition’s cited reports … .

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Mandamus to compel is “an extraordinary remedy that lies only to compel the performance of acts which are mandatory, not discretionary, and only when there is a clear legal right to the relief sought” … . It is beyond cavil that students are entitled to a sound basic education (see NY Const art XI). The manner in which such goal is achieved, however, involves discretionary decisions by respondents … . As such, to the extent that petitioners seek to compel respondents to implement specific recommendations set forth in the reports cited in the petition — an act involving “the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results”… — they are not entitled to such relief. Matter of Curry v New York State Educ. Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 05393, Third Dept 7-19-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MANDAMUS, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT))/MANDAMUS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner did not demonstrate the tenant, Cohen, violated a court order directing Cohen to pay his rent directly to the petitioner, who had a judgment against Cohen’s landlord. The court order required that Cohen pay any rent due under the lease to petitioner (CPLR 5225). However, the landlord terminated Cohen’s lease. Therefore Cohen did not not violate the order and should not have been held in civil contempt:

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that Cohen disobeyed the … order, which required him to “pay rent to petitioner as due under the lease” … . J…  Since Cohen’s lease … expired on July 31, 2015, on August 1, 2015, Cohen became a holdover tenant. Damages attributable to Cohen’s continued occupation of the premises were not due “under the lease,” but rather, were due as use and occupancy for the reasonable value of the premises … . “The obligation to pay for use and occupancy does not arise from an underlying contract between the landlord and the occupant” … . “Rather, an occupant’s duty to pay the landlord for its use and occupancy of the premises is predicated upon the theory of quantum meruit, and is imposed by law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties” … . Accordingly, the motion to hold Cohen in contempt should have been denied. Matter of First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05306, Second Dept 7-18-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for a new trial (CPLR 4404) in this car-bus-accident wrongful death case if plaintiff did not agree to a reduction of damages for pre-impact terror and conscious pain and suffering:

Here, the evidence at trial established that the decedent made eye contact with the defendant bus operator, William R. Dortch, for approximately one second before the bus collided with the decedent’s vehicle. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determinations that the $250,000 award for pre-impact terror deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation and to grant the branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for a new trial on the issue of pre-impact terror unless the plaintiff agreed to an award in the principal sum of $50,000 … . …

Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the jury award in the principal sum of $1,250,000 deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the decedent’s post-impact conscious pain and suffering. The evidence established that the decedent was able to feel pain following the collision, but that she was able to do so for, at most, 11 to 20 minutes and that, during that time, she was minimally conscious (see id. at 460). Under these circumstances, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for a new trial on the issue of conscious pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to an award in the principal sum of $400,000 was properly granted … . Vatalaro v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 05352, Second Dept 7-18-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BUSES, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (DAMAGES, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PRE-IMPACT TERROR  (WRONGFUL DEATH, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING (WRONGFUL DEATH, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the New York City Department of Corrections (NYCDOC) was a necessary party in this proceeding contesting a jail time credit calculation. Although the issue was not raised below, a necessary-party issue can be raised for the first time on appeal but may not be corrected by an appellate court:

NYCDOC is a necessary party to this proceeding “because petitioner is seeking additional credit for jail time spent in correctional facilities in New York City [under NYCDOC] and, if petitioner is successful, [NYCDOC’s] commissioner will be required, pursuant to . . . Correction Law [§ 600-a], to recompute petitioner’s jail time and deliver a certified transcript of the record of petitioner’s jail time”…

While respondent did not raise this issue in Supreme Court, it is well-established that “‘a court may always consider whether there has been a failure to join a necessary party’, including on its own motion, and for the first time on appeal” … . As this Court “may not, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party[,] . . . the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to order [NYCDOC] to be joined if [it] is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and, if not, to permit [its] joinder by stipulation, motion or otherwise and, if joinder cannot be effectuated, the court must then determine whether the proceeding should be permitted to proceed in the absence of [a] necessary part[y]” … . Matter of Velez v New York State, Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 05243, Third Dept 7-11-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NECESSARY PARTY, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 1001 (NECESSARY PARTY, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPEALS, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (JAIL TIME CREDIT CALCULATION, (NECESSARY PARTY, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NYCDOC) (JAIL TIME CREDIT CALCULATION, (NECESSARY PARTY, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (NECESSARY PARTY,  NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court abused its discretion when it dismissed an equitable estoppel hearing in a paternity and custody proceeding when mother failed to appear and the child requested an adjournment:

Despite the fact that the mother had appeared on all prior court dates, and was in the middle of her testimony at the hearing, the Family Court denied the child’s request for an adjournment, and instead directed dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute. The child, Malachi S., appeals. …

Here, as the child and the mother correctly contend, the request for an adjournment was reasonable and there was no indication of intentional default or willful abandonment. Under these circumstances, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute rather than granting the child’s request for an adjournment … . Matter of Simmons v Ford, 2018 NY Slip Op 05176, Second Dept 7-11-18

​FAMILY LAW (CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ADJOURNMENT (FAMILY LAW, CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY  (CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the property defendants’ motion to join the slip and fall action with a medical malpractice action stemming from the slip and fall injury was properly denied. Plaintiff had stepped in a rodent hole and subsequently sued hospitals for malpractice in the treatment of her foot injury:

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue” (CPLR 602[a]…). The determination of such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court… . Denial of the motion may be warranted where common questions of law or fact are lacking … , where the actions involve dissimilar issues or disparate legal theories … , or where a joint trial would substantially prejudice an opposing party … or pose a risk of confusing the jury or rendering the litigation unwieldy … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the property defendants’ motion for a joint trial given the limited commonality between the two actions, the disparate legal theories and dissimilar issues they involve, the very different procedural stages of the two actions at the time the motion was made, and the potential prejudice to the opposing parties as well as the risks of juror confusion and unwieldy litigation if a joint trial was granted … . Cromwell v CRP 482 Riverdale Ave., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05137, Second Dept 7-11-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINDER, PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINDER, PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 602  (PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JOINDER (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINDER, PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (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