You are here: / 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).

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))

, ,

THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon flawed jury instructions should have been granted. Plaintiff was awarded a $5 million verdict based upon complaints made by the defendant, who taught at the school, which led to plaintiff’s firing from her position as superintendent of the NYS School for the Deaf. The Fourth Department determined the pattern jury instructions, which the trial court followed, do not state the correct way to instruct a jury on the elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. One of the elements is the commission of an independent crime or tort. The pattern jury instructions indicate that whether an independent crime or tort has been committed should be determined by the court as a matter of law. The Fourth Department disagreed and held that whether defendant committed an independent crime or tort is a factual question for the jury:

To state a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, “a plaintiff must plead that the defendant directly interfered with a third party and that the defendant either employed wrongful means or acted for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on plaintiff[]” … . The term “[w]rongful means” has been defined by the Court of Appeals as conduct amounting “to a crime or an independent tort” … . This definition was a refinement to the … previous description of the standard, which required “more culpable conduct on the part of the defendant” for the interference when there is no breach of an existing contract. …” [M]ore culpable’ conduct” [haw been defined] as including the “wrongful means” … . … Wrongful means include physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and some degrees of economic pressure; they do not, however, include persuasion alone although it is knowingly directed at interference with the contract … . …

… [T]he determination whether particular facts constitute the independent tort is almost always a factual determination best left to the jury. Thus, while the court should evaluate the evidence to decide which independent tort(s) fits the fact pattern presented, the disputed underlying elements of the independent tort should still be charged to the jury. Ray v Stockton, 2018 NY Slip Op 04861, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE (THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS  (THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the court attorney referee was not authorized to determine a contested family offense petition or custody and visitation issues:

A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311, 4317…). Here, as correctly asserted by the mother, the order of reference did not authorize the Court Attorney Referee to hear and report or to hear and determine a contested family offense petition. The Court Attorney Referee therefore lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the mother’s family offense petition in this instance… . Accordingly, the family offense matter must be remitted to a judge of the Family Court for a new determination.

With respect to the determination of custody, the order of reference recited that, upon the parties’ stipulation, a court attorney referee is authorized to hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody of and visitation with the child, including the determination of motions and temporary orders of custody. Upon our review of the record, however, we find no indication that the parties stipulated to the reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104, and, absent such stipulation, the Court Attorney Referee had the power only to hear and report her findings … . We further find that the mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge … . The order of reference must therefore be deemed an order to hear and report. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective rights of custody and visitation … . Matter of Rose v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04736, Second Dept 6-27-18

​FAMILY LAW (COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4311, 4317, 2104 (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/REFEREES  (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary discontinuance without prejudice should have been granted:

CPLR 3217(b) permits a voluntary discontinuance of a claim by court order “upon terms and conditions, as the court deems proper” (CPLR 3217[b]…). In general, absent a showing of special circumstances, including prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted without prejudice … .

Here, there was no evidence that the defendant would be prejudiced by a discontinuance without prejudice … . Kondaur Capital Corp. v Reilly, 2018 NY Slip Op 04707, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCONTINUANCE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE (WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3217 (DISCONTINUANCE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO A DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision which sparked two dissenting opinions involving three judges, determined no appeal lies from the denial of a nonparty’s motion to quash a subpoena issued in a criminal action because there is no statutory authority for such an appeal. In contrast, the same motion brought prior to the commencement of a criminal action is civil in nature and is appealable. Here a reporter interviewed the defendant who had confessed in 2013 to the murder of a four-year-old girl in 1991. The reporter wrote a story stating that the defendant alleged his confession was not truthful. The subpoenas sought the appearance of the reporter at trial and the notes of the interview.  The trial court for the most part denied the motions to quash. The Appellate Division reversed without addressing the jurisdictional issue:

The critical distinction between orders addressing subpoenas that precede, as opposed to follow, the commencement of a criminal action is grounded in the plain language of the CPL, which governs “[a]ll criminal actions and proceedings” … . Specifically, a “criminal action commences . . . with the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant in a criminal court” … , and a “criminal proceeding” includes “any proceeding which (a) constitutes a part of a criminal action or (b) occurs in a criminal court and is related to a . . . criminal action . . . or involves a criminal investigation” … . Definitionally, an order resolving a motion to quash a subpoena that is issued prior to the filing of an accusatory instrument does not arise within the context of a “criminal action.” Moreover, while such an order may relate to a criminal investigation, when issued in a court of general jurisdiction prior to the commencement of a criminal action, it “arises . . . on the civil side of the court”… . Therefore, an order resolving a motion to quash a subpoena falls outside of the ambit of the CPL—and its concomitant limitations upon appellate review—when the order is issued before a criminal action begins. Review of an order issued in the investigatory stage does not undermine the legislative aim of “limit[ing] appellate proliferation in criminal matters”… insofar as appellate practice at this stage cannot be said to intrude significantly upon a criminal action that may never be commenced. The order here, however, issued after the accusatory instrument was filed, plainly arose in a “criminal action” within the meaning of that term as prescribed by the CPL. Matter of People v Juarez, 2018 NY Slip Op 04684, CtApp 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUBPOENAS, NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, SUBPOENAS, NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP))/SUBPOENAS, MOTION TO QUASH (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP))/QUASH SUBPOENAS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL ACTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR SUCH AN APPEAL, THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE REPORTER’S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL AND NOTES OF THE REPORTER’S POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT, IN CONTRAST, HAD THE SUBPOENAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE MOTION TO QUASH WOULD HAVE BEEN CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE DENIAL APPEALABLE (CT APP))

, ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined (1) the court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff in this sidewalk slip and fall case based upon a theory raised for the first time in reply papers, (2) the city defendants did not demonstrate that they did not have written notice of the condition or that they did not create the condition, and (3) evidence submitted by the city defendants for the first time in reply papers could not be considered with respect to a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment:

The plaintiff alleged, for the first time in opposition to the motion and cross motion for summary judgment, that the defendants were strictly liable under an absolute nuisance theory. However, a plaintiff cannot defeat an otherwise proper motion for summary judgment by asserting, for the first time in opposition to the motion, a new theory of liability that was not pleaded in the complaint or bill of particulars … . …

… [T]he City defendants’ … “failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they had no prior written notice as they failed to submit proof of such lack of notice from the proper municipal official”…, or that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition through an affirmative act of negligence… . The evidence submitted by the City defendants for the first time in their reply papers cannot be considered for the purpose of determining whether they met their prima facie burden … . Troia v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04770, Second Dept 6-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REPLY PAPERS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant general contractor was not entitled to dismissal of the punitive damages claim in connection with a high rise fire during demolition. 42 feet of the water standpipe had been removed, stairways were blocked and a no smoking policy was not enforced. One hundred firefighters were injured and two were killed fighting the blaze. The court found that the general contractor (Bovis) could be held liable for punitive damages based upon the acts and omissions of its safety manager, Melofchik. The court further found that the motion court properly considered plaintiffs’ new motion papers which were submitted before Bovis’s reply papers were due and which did not change the substance of the prior papers or prejudice Bovis:

Conduct justifying punitive damages “must manifest spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton'” … . Although issues of fact exist as to whether Bovis’s site safety manger, Jeff Melofchik, was present shortly after the subcontractor removed the 42-foot section of the pipe in November 2006, and whether Melofchik became aware at that point that the segment was part of the standpipe, it is undisputed that Melofchik did not test the standpipe system to ensure that it was operational during the 16-month period from March 2006 (when Bovis became the general contractor on the project) to August 2007 (when the fire occurred). …

An employer may be assessed punitive damages for an employee’s conduct “only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant,” such that it is complicit in that conduct … . Complicity is evident when “a superior officer in the course of employment orders, participates in, or ratifies outrageous conduct” … . Although Melofchik was not a “superior officer” and nothing suggests that Bovis management authorized or ratified Melofchik’s conduct, an issue of fact exists as to whether management was aware of Melofchik’s incompetence but still “deliberately retained the unfit servant … .”  Borst v Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04679, First Dept 6-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DAMAGES (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant Kain had raised two non-negligent explanations for rear-ending the car in front of him and therefore plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Kain had testified that his brakes didn’t work properly and the cars in front of him stopped abruptly. Although Kain had not raised brake failure as an affirmative defense, the court noted that the defense could be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion absent surprise and provided the moving party has a chance to respond:

The claim that an accident was unavoidable due to brake failure is an affirmative defense … . However, “[e]ven an unpleaded defense may be raised on a summary judgment motion, as long as it would not be likely to surprise the adverse party or raise issues of fact not previously apparent” … .. Accordingly, a nonmovant may invoke a waived defense to defeat a motion for summary judgment if the movant has the opportunity to respond … . Kain testified at his deposition that the brakes in his vehicle failed, and plaintiffs addressed that issue in their moving papers and again in their reply.

… [D]efendants met their burden to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Kain testified that the brakes did not operate normally when he applied them and, further, that the application of the brakes did not appreciably slow the speed of the vehicle as he approached the vehicles that were stopped at the traffic signal. Further, he testified that his vehicle was relatively new and was in good working order, and that the only mechanical problems he had experienced prior to the accident were unrelated to the brakes. He further testified that the brakes operated properly prior to the accident, the inspection was current and the malfunction caused him to apply his emergency brake. …

Kain also testified [the two cars in front of him] abruptly stopped directly in front of his vehicle. He specifically stated that [plaintiffs’] vehicle approached the intersection without slowing, as if it was going to proceed, and that it stopped immediately when the light turned red, thereby forcing the [car behind plaintiffs’] to also stop abruptly. He further testified that he was traveling at or below the speed limit and that he applied his brakes immediately upon seeing that both vehicles had stopped abruptly in his path. Warner v Kain, 2018 NY Slip Op 04630, Third Dept 6-21-18

​NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT))/BRAKE FAILURE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD 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