Civil Procedure – Page 241 – New York Appellate Digest

FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the appeal as academic, determined Family Court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction in this guardianship proceeding because the child had turned 21. Mother had sought appointment as guardian in an effort to procure special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) for the child:

“Generally, courts are precluded from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances'” … . Where, as here, a child who consented to the appointment of a guardian after his or her 18th birthday turns 21, the term of appointment of the guardian “expires on [the child’s] twenty-first birthday” (SCPA 1707[2]). Consequently, once the child turns 21, the court “is divested of subject matter jurisdiction, [and] cannot exercise such jurisdiction by virtue of an order nunc pro tunc” … . Thus, the guardianship petition cannot be granted at this juncture.

Furthermore, since guardianship status, which the Family Court can only grant to individuals under 21, is a condition precedent to a declaration allowing a child to seek SIJS, the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order declaring that the child is dependent on the court and making the requisite specific findings so as to enable him to petition for SIJS has also been rendered academic … . Matter of Vincenta E. V. v Alexander R. G., 2018 NY Slip Op 03849, Second Dept 5-30-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT))

May 30, 2018

Civil Procedure

DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined a trial subpoena issued to a defendant in a medical malpractice action compelled defendant’s attendance despite his having moved to South Carolina:

… [T]he plaintiffs mailed a subpoena to the office of the defendant’s attorneys, located in Mineola, New York. The subpoena commanded the defendant to appear at the trial of this action to give testimony as part of the plaintiffs’ direct case. The defendant moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the court because he had moved from New York to South Carolina during the pendency of the action. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.

A court of record generally has the power “to issue a subpoena requiring the attendance of a person found in the state to testify in a cause pending in that court” (Judiciary Law § 2-b[1]). “Where the attendance at trial of a party or person within the party’s control can be compelled by a trial subpoena, that subpoena may be served by delivery in accordance with [CPLR 2103(b)] to the party’s attorney of record” (CPLR 2303-a). Here, the trial subpoena was properly served upon the defendant’s attorneys pursuant to CPLR 2303-a and 2103(b)(2). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, because he is a party to this action, over whom personal jurisdiction had been obtained, he is “found in the state” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 2-b(1) … . Chicoine v Koch, 2018 NY Slip Op 03825, Second Dept 5-30-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT))/SUBPOENAS (DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT))/TRIALS (SUBPOENAS, DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT))

May 30, 2018

Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law, Privilege, Public Health Law

PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff in this whistleblower action was entitled to discover medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Public Health Law (PHL). Plaintiff alleged he was fired, in violation Labor Law 740, in retaliation for complaining that defendant’s employees procured organs without performing tests and from people who still showed signs of life:

The records concerning these four individuals are material and necessary to plaintiff’s claim (see CPLR 3101[a]). To prevail on a claim for retaliatory termination in violation of Labor Law § 740(2), plaintiff must prove that he was fired because he objected to or threatened to disclose a practice that was in violation of a law or regulation … . The subject medical records will allegedly show that defendant pressured doctors to declare people dead in violation of regulations regarding the making of such determinations … .

… [B]ecause the subject disclosure would be made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pursuant to a qualified protective order, it is authorized under HIPAA… .

… PHL § 4351(8) renders defendant’s documents subject to the protections of the physician-patient privilege set forth at CPLR 4504. This privilege is personal to the patient and is not terminated by death … . It has not been expressly or implicitly waived in this case by the donors’ next of kin … . However, plaintiff demonstrated that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to his claim and that “the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege and permitting discovery of the records with all identifying patient information appropriately redacted to protect patient confidentiality” … . Allowing disclosure under these circumstances is consistent with the public policy underlying the whistleblower statute, i.e., to encourage employees to report hazards to supervisors and the public … . McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 03820, First Dept 5-29-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (WHISTLEBLOWERS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/HIPAA (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))

May 29, 2018

Civil Procedure, Insurance Law

THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department modified the judgment in this uninsured driver traffic accident case. Although the Motor Vehicle Accident indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) can withhold payment until it receives a release from the plaintiff pursuant to a settlement agreement, the MVAIC cannot demand a release where, as here, a court has issued a judgment:

“Where judgment has been entered against an uninsured defendant in favor of a qualified person, Insurance Law § 5210 provides that a qualified person may petition the court to compel MVAIC to pay the amount of a judgment against that uninsured defendant that remains unpaid, subject to the limitations contained therein” … . Here, the petitioner demonstrated that she obtained the underlying judgment … , which remained unpaid. However, the sum sought by the petitioner, and the amount the Supreme Court directed MVAIC to pay, exceeded MVAIC’s statutory limit of liability.

The maximum limit of MVAIC’s liability under the Insurance Law is $25,000 (see Insurance Law § 5210[a][1]). MVAIC’s contention that the petitioner is not entitled to interest because the delay in payment was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to execute a release in the proper amount is without merit. While MVAIC has the right to a release upon the settlement of a claim (see Insurance Law § 5213[b]; CPLR 5003-a), MVAIC is not entitled to such a release when ordered to pay on a judgment. Matter of Baker v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03676, Second Dept 5-23-18

INSURANCE LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/UNINSURED DRIVERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Citimortgage’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action to cancel and discharge a mortgage should not have been granted. The bank started a foreclosure action in 2009 and the statute of limitations expired on March 17, 2015. On March 13, 2015, the bank sent a letter to plaintiff purporting to de-accelerate the loan and re-institute the loan as an installment loan. The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss should not have been converted to a motion for summary judgment and the March 13, 2015, letter did not constitute documentary evidence sufficient to dismiss the complaint. There was no proof when the letter was mailed and it could have arrived after the statute of limitations expired:

Here, the Supreme Court should not have converted Citimortgage’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint to one for summary judgment without providing “adequate notice to the parties” (CPLR 3211[c]…). None of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable here. No specific request for summary judgment was made by any party, the parties did not deliberately chart a summary judgment course, and the action did not exclusively involve issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties … . …

“In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable. Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case. However, neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Furthermore, “[a] lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action”… . Soroush v Citimortgage, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03724, Second Dept 5-23-18

FORECLOSURE (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISS, MOTION TO, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (DISMISS, MOTION TO, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Civil Procedure, Education-School Law, Employment Law, Municipal Law, Negligence

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school district’s motion to set aside the verdict for legal insufficiency should have been granted. Plaintiff assistant principal sued the district after she was injured breaking up a fight between students. She had previously been injured by a student and had complained that more security was needed on the floor where she was hurt. The Second Department explained that plaintiff could not recover unless a special relationship with the school district had been proven:

On a legal sufficiency challenge, whether made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case or pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict, the relevant inquiry is whether there is any rational process by which the trier of fact could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the injured plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for the breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public … . A special relationship can be formed, inter alia, if the defendants voluntarily assumed a special duty to the injured plaintiff upon which she justifiably relied … . In order to succeed on this theory, the plaintiffs were required to establish four elements: (1) an assumption by the defendants, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured plaintiff; (2) knowledge on the part of defendants’ agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the defendants’ agents and the injured plaintiff; and (4) the injured plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the defendants’ affirmative undertaking … . Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03673, Second Dept 5-23-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (SET ASIDE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Negligence

EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the writing and execution requirements for an out-of-court stipulation of settlement were not met by an e-mail sent by the defendant in a slip and fall case:

To be enforceable, a stipulation of settlement must conform to the criteria set forth in CPLR 2104 … . Where, as in the instant case, counsel for the parties did not enter into a settlement in open court, an “agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action . . . is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney” … . The plain language of CPLR 2104 requires that “the agreement itself must be in writing, signed by the party (or attorney) to be bound” … . An email message may be considered “subscribed” as required by CPLR 2104, and, therefore, capable of enforcement, where it “contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature” … .

Here, the email confirming the settlement agreement was sent by counsel for the party seeking to enforce the agreement, [defendant]. There is no email subscribed by the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged, or by her former attorney. In the absence of a writing subscribed by the plaintiff or her attorney, the settlement agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff … . Kataldo v Atlantic Chevrolet Cadillac, 2018 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 5-23-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SETTLEMENT, STIPULATION OF (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2014 (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Civil Procedure

WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his default should have been granted as a matter of law. Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been notified of the court conferences and the plaintiff did not offer any contrary evidence:

Generally, to vacate an order striking a defendant’s answer based upon his or her default in appearing for a scheduled conference before the court, the defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to appear and a potentially meritorious defense … . However, “[i]n the absence of actual notice of [a] conference date, [a] defendant’s failure to appear at that conference [cannot] qualify as a failure to perform a legal duty, the very definition of a default'” … . In that situation, the defendant’s default is considered a nullity and vacatur of the default “is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required” … . Notaro v Performance Team, 2018 NY Slip Op 03692, Second Dept 5-23-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/COURT CONFERENCES (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure

THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the tolling provision in CPLR 205 which allows an action which was dismissed (but not on the merits) to be started again within six months applies to Article 78 actions seeking review of an administrative ruling, here a ruling by the NYS Liquor Authority:

As the petitioner correctly contends, CPLR 205(a) applies not only to actions but also to special proceedings under CPLR article 78 … . The toll of CPLR 205(a) would not apply, however, if the prior proceeding was dismissed on the merits; thus, the court must determine whether the order dismissing the prior proceeding is entitled to res judicata effect … .

Here, the prior proceeding was dismissed after being marked off the calendar. Contrary to the Authority’s contention, “[a] dismissal of an action by being marked off the Trial Calendar is not a dismissal on the merits,” and “[a] new action on the same theory is therefore not barred by the doctrine of res judicata”… . Moreover, there is nothing in the order denying the petitioner’s motion to restore the prior proceeding to the calendar which suggests that the prior proceeding was dismissed with prejudice … . Matter of Lindenwood Cut Rate Liquors, Ltd. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03680, Second Dept 5-23-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 205 (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))

May 23, 2018

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fraud

ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined, although the usual rule is one who signs an agreement is deemed to have read it, the rule may not apply when there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties and reliance on the assurances of a party (here the parties to a trust agreement were father and son). Plaintiff alleged he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. The court noted that a certified, unsigned transcript of a deposition was admissible because the transcript had been mailed to opposing counsel more than 60 days before the motion was brought:

Plaintiff’s claim … is that defendant led him to believe that the documentation that defendant presented for his signature (a trust agreement and two deeds) was for the conveyance of [one condominium unit] only. In fact, the paperwork provided for the conveyance of [two condominium units] to the trust. Ordinarily a person is bound by the terms of an instrument he or she signs, and may not claim to have justifiably relied on false representations concerning the contents of a document that he or she failed to read without valid excuse … . In this case, however, whether this principle applies to bar plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim … cannot be determined as a matter of law because plaintiff alleges that he and defendant, his son, had a relationship of trust and confidence … . Tsai Chung Chao v Chao, 2018 NY Slip Op 03620, First Dept 5-17-18

CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

May 17, 2018

FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT).

DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT).

THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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