You are here: / Civil Procedure

STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a discovery violation had occurred, but it did not involve spoliation of evidence and striking defendant’s (the Clinic’s) answer was too severe a sanction. This is a medical malpractice action alleging a failure to diagnose breast cancer. The plaintiff sought reports generated by software (CAD) used to detect breast cancer:

… [J]ust prior to the scheduled date for trial, plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum on defendants requesting CAD structured reports. Defendants objected to the subpoena and … plaintiff moved to strike defendants’ answers or for other sanctions for defendants’ discovery violation. In response, defendants were eventually able to generate the CAD structured reports and provided them to plaintiff. …

… [A]lthough we agree with the court that plaintiff established that a discovery violation occurred, we conclude that the sanction of striking the answer of the Clinic was too severe under the circumstances of this case … . This case is not similar to a spoliation case because the CAD structured reports were never destroyed but, rather, were not generated and produced in a timely manner . We conclude that the Clinic should be sanctioned by imposing costs upon it for any additional expenses plaintiff incurred as a result of the delay in disclosure … . Woloszuk v Logan-Young, 2018 NY Slip Op 04176, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOVERY (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/SANCTIONS (DISCOVERY VIOLATION, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against the municipality was timely commenced. The one-year-and-ninety-day statute of limitations was tolled when plaintiff filed a successful motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law, a plaintiff must first serve a notice of claim against a municipality within 90 days after the claim arises … and commence any subsequent tort action against the municipality within one year and 90 days after the claim arises (see General Municipal Law § 50-i). Because plaintiff’s claims against defendants, if any, arise from the fire that occurred on February 18, 2014, he was therefore required to file and serve a notice of claim by May 19, 2014 and commence any subsequent tort action by May 19, 2015. Having failed to file and serve his notice of claim by May 19, 2014, plaintiff was permitted to, and did, commence a special proceeding seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. While the applicable one year and 90-day statute of limitations began to run on February 18, 2014, upon plaintiff’s commencement of the proceeding, the provisions of CPLR 204 (a) operated to toll the remainder of the statute of limitations until the date that the court granted the requested relief, at which point the statute began to run once again … . To put it in mathematical terms, when plaintiff commenced the proceeding seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on November 14, 2014, he had 186 days remaining in order to timely commence this action within the applicable statute of limitations. As of that date, the statute of limitations stopped running and did not resume until May 27, 2015, when Supreme Court issued its order granting plaintiff’s application. Thus, plaintiff had 186 days running from May 27, 2015 or until November 29, 2015 to timely commence this action. Since plaintiff commenced this action on October 20, 2015, it was timely commenced and may now proceed to a determination as to whether it has any merit. Kulon v Liberty Fire Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 04062, Third Dept 6-7-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM,, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))

,

ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, announcing a new Third-Department rule governing expert witness disclosure in medical malpractice actions, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined plaintiffs are obligated to provide full disclosure of a prospective expert witness’s qualifications, even if the disclosure will identify the witness. Defendants may be entitled to a protective order prohibiting the intimidation or harassment of a witness whose identity has effectively been revealed by his or her qualifications:

Inasmuch as this state’s expert disclosure statute is already the most restrictive in the nation, there is no reason for this Court to continue to interpret the statute in a way that permits parties to severely limit the amount of information they provide regarding their expert witnesses.

Like the 2nd Department held in Thomas v Alleyne [302 AD2d 36], we conclude that our current standard is not only impractical, but contrary to the statutory language and “the salutary policy of encouraging full pretrial disclosure so as to advance the fundamental purpose of litigation, which is to ascertain the truth” … . Accordingly, we adopt that Court’s rule that parties in medical malpractice cases “will ordinarily be entitled to full disclosure of the qualifications of [an opponent’s] expert, [except for the expert’s name,] notwithstanding that such disclosure may permit such expert’s identification,” but a party may obtain a protective order under CPLR 3103 (a) by making a factual showing that there exists a reasonable probability, “under the special circumstances of a particular case, that a prospective expert medical witness would be subjected to intimidation or threats if his or her name were revealed before trial” … . Kanaly v DeMartino, 2018 NY Slip Op 04060, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT WITNESSES, DISCLOSURE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLOSURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/QUALIFICATIONS (EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the denial of summary judgment and the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict in this probate action, determined evidence included in a settlement letter and hearsay relied upon an expert witness were properly admitted. The court further found that the missing witness jury instruction for the decedent’s treating doctors was proper, but the missing witness jury instruction for the attorney who drafted the will, who lives in Florida, was (harmless) error. The jury revoked preliminary letters:

Although CPLR 4547 precludes presentation of evidence of settlement negotiations, it expressly exempts exclusion of evidence, which is otherwise discoverable, solely because such evidence was presented during the course of settlement negotiations.

The list of paintings that was signed by proponent as part of the settlement conference in Shanghai was admitted into evidence because it included a factual admission that proponent possessed a painting that he accused objectant of stealing. Thus, its use at trial was permissible, notwithstanding that the factual statement was contained in a settlement document … . …

The court’s missing witness charge with respect to the attorney, Jerome Kamerman, was in error. Mr. Kamerman was living in Florida at the time of trial and was unavailable to proponents … . …

A psychiatrist’s opinion may be received in evidence even though some of the information on which it is based is inadmissible hearsay, if the hearsay is “of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion, or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on [] trial” … . The court properly permitted the expert to testify, despite his conversations with objectant, since she was subject to full cross-examination at trial. Matter of Chi-ChuanFile Wang, 2018 NY Slip Op 04090, First Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS  (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 4547 (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (MISSING WITNESSES, EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/MISSING WITNESS INSTRUCTION (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (EXPERT OPINION, EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance to allow their expert to testify in this medical malpractice action should have been granted.

When the expert … arrived in the late morning of December 1, 2016, he did not have his original file with him. According to the expert, he left the original file in his hotel and it was his belief that it was not necessary for him to have it in order to testify. Defendant objected to having the expert testify until the original file was with him. Supreme Court directed the expert to have his office make arrangements to immediately bring the original file to the courthouse with the hope that it would arrive in the afternoon. According to the court, the expert could then testify that afternoon and finish the next day, on Friday, December 2, 2016. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, advised the court that the expert had scheduled appointments with patients on December 2, 2016 and was unavailable to testify that day or on December 5, 2016. The next available day for the expert was Tuesday, December 6, 2016. The court, however, instructed the expert to reschedule his appointments. The expert testified in the afternoon of December 1, 2016, but by the completion of direct examination by plaintiffs’ counsel, the original file had not arrived. …

On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs’ expert did not appear. …

We conclude that plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance should have been granted … . The record does not support Supreme Court’s finding that the failure of plaintiffs’ expert to appear and complete his testimony on December 2, 2016 stemmed from a lack of due diligence by plaintiffs … . Normandin v Bell, 2018 NY Slip Op 04053, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUANCE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT WITNESS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CONTINUANCE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a lawsuit brought by plaintiff village alleging the county did not have the power to issue parking tickets in the village, explained how to determine the appropriate statute of limitations in actions seeking a declaratory judgment:

While no period of limitation is specifically prescribed for a declaratory judgment action, the six-year catch-all limitation period of CPLR 213(1) does not necessarily apply to all such actions. Rather, in order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that the parties’ dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs … .

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is unavailable to challenge the validity of a legislative act … . However, when a challenge is directed to the procedure followed in enacting, rather than the substance of, legislation, a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 may be maintained … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s third cause of action alleged that the actions taken by the defendants in the formation of the agency were void, invalid, and illegal due to the failure of the defendants to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act … . “SEQRA challenges must be commenced within four months after the determination becomes final and binding upon the petitioner … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s … causes of action … for declaratory relief … challenging the substantive validity of the defendants’ formation of the [county parking ticket] agency and the defendants’ continuing actions with respect to the adjudication of tickets issued for violations occurring in the Village, either could not have been maintained in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … , or related to ongoing actions of the defendants, and, thus, were not barred by the four-month limitation period under CPLR 217(1). Accordingly, since the six-year statute of limitations of CPLR 213(1) applies … .  Village of Islandia v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 04025, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was judicially estopped from imposing a constructive trust on real property because he stated he had no interest in the property in prior bankruptcy proceedings:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed … . The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding … . This doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'” … . “The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts”… .

Here, the plaintiff’s contention that he had an interest in the … property based on promises that [defendant]  made to the plaintiff … is contrary to his representation to the United States Bankruptcy Court … that he had no interest in real property. Based upon the plaintiff’s representations to the Bankruptcy Court, his debts were discharged. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court that this action is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Bihn v Connelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when a masonry stone fell on the scaffold and the planks collapsed. The court noted that defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment was properly considered only to the extent the issues were identical to the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

This Court may consider the merits of defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because it is based on the same issues raised in plaintiff’s motion … However, the remainder of the motion, seeking dismissal of Labor Law § 241(6), Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims cannot be considered because it does not address issues nearly identical to those raised in the timely motion and defendants did not demonstrate good cause for the delay … .

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. He established, prima facie, that he was engaged in an activity falling within the statute, and that defendants failed to provide him proper safety equipment, either in the form of a scaffold that could withstand the force of a falling masonry stone … , or any other appropriate safety device. Plaintiff further demonstrated that defendants’ failure to provide an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of the accident, and defendants have failed to raise an issue of fact. Jarama v 902 Liberty Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03897, First Dept 5-31-18

​LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had made a sufficient showing that New York may have jurisdiction over the defendants to warrant jurisdictional disclosure:

… [P]laintiff made a “sufficient start” in establishing that New York courts have jurisdiction over defendants to warrant jurisdictional disclosure and a hearing… . On his motion to renew, plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of jurisdiction on the papers alone (… CPLR 2221[e], [f]). The evidence shows that plaintiff was hired by defendants, a corporation and two individuals, all residents of Louisiana, after an in-person meeting in New York and that defendants engaged in extensive communications with him by telephone, email, in-person meetings, and document exchanges for two years while he was in New York representing them in various matters. Mischel v Safe Haven Enters., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03902, First Dept 5-31-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/SUFFICIENT START (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the arbitrator’s award was irrational and violated CPLR 1209 in this no-fault insurance action. The injured child and his mother had assigned their rights to payment for health care services to the petitioner, Fast Care. Contrary to the arbitrator’s finding, arbitration was not sought by the injured child, which would have required a court order under CPLR 1209, but rather was sought by the assignee, Fast Care:

An arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding his or her power; or (4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR article 75 … . In addition, an arbitration award may be vacated “if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power”… . An arbitration award may also be vacated where it is in ” explicit conflict'” with established laws and “the strong and well-defined policy considerations’ embodied therein”… .

We agree with the Supreme Court that the arbitrator’s award was irrational and in conflict with CPLR 1209, which applies “only where an infant is a party” to an arbitration proceeding … . The infant patient was not a party to the arbitration; rather, Fast Care, as the infant’s assignee, was the party that brought the arbitration … . Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03831, Second Dept 5-30-18

​INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATION, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1209 (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, ARBITRATION, ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (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