You are here: / 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).

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))

,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for a variance should have been granted on financial hardship grounds, but the action alleging a regulatory taking was not ripe, an issue which can be raised on appeal for the first time. Petitioner demonstrated the character of the surrounding area had changed from residential to commercial over the past 30 years rendering the property unmarketable as residential property:

The ZBA [zoning board of appeals] actually agreed that “the location of this property on a corner may impact its value,” and its ultimate conclusion that the financial hardship was not unique seemingly ran counter to that observation … . Moreover, in light of the proof that the need for a use variance only arose decades after the property was acquired due to a gradual shift in the character of the area that rendered the permitted residential use onerous and obsolete, petitioners sufficiently alleged “that the hardship identified by [them] . . . was [not] self-created” … . Accepting the foregoing as true, as we must, petitioners stated a viable claim attacking the ZBA’s determination.

… [T]he remaining regulatory taking claim must be dismissed. The petition/complaint states, and petitioners’ arguments on appeal reflect, that the owner’s taking claim is solely premised upon a deprivation of rights afforded under the Federal Constitution (see US Const 5th Amend; 42 USC § 1983). In order for a 42 USC § 1983 claim based upon a regulatory taking to be ripe, however, it is necessary for a petitioner/plaintiff to “demonstrate that [he or] she has both received a ‘final decision regarding the application of the [challenged] regulations to the property at issue’ from ‘the government entity charged with implementing the regulations,’ and sought ‘compensation through the procedures the [s]tate has provided for doing so'”… . The denial of the application for a use variance constituted a final decision regarding the application of the zoning regulations to its property… , but there is no indication that the owner then asserted a state claim for inverse condemnation… . Thus, inasmuch as ripeness is a “matter[] pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised at any time” and the second cause of action founded upon 42 USC § 1983 is “unripe because [the owner] failed to seek compensation from the [s]tate before” asserting it… , it must be dismissed. Matter of 54 Marion Ave., LLC v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 04611, Third Dept 6-21-18

​ZONING (PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/VARIANCE (ZONING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (REGULATORY TAKING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/REGULATORY TAKING (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

,

IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, modifying Supreme Court, determined the amount of an applicant’s equity in an automobile, not the fair market value (FMV), should be used in calculating whether an applicant is eligible for public assistance. Here the applicant owed more than the car was worth, but she was erroneously deemed ineligible because of the fair market value of the car. The Third Department further determined that the applicant was entitled to discovery in her effort to get class action certification seeking retroactive relief for persons who had been wrongly denied public assistance under similar circumstances:

Only the net amount that could be received upon the sale of an asset that is encumbered by an outstanding loan balance, i.e., the FMV less the outstanding loan balance, could be available to eliminate or reduce an applicant’s need for public assistance. The arbitrary nature of OTDA’s [Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance’s] contrary position is aptly illustrated in this case, where the sale of the vehicle would not have generated any resources that petitioner could have used to meet her own support needs. Indeed, based on the automobile’s FMV, she would not have received enough upon its sale to pay the entire outstanding loan balance. For these reasons, we conclude that Supreme Court properly held that the extent to which the FMV of an automobile that exceeds the exempt amount is an available resource must be determined based on the applicant’s equity interest therein, and that OTDA’s contrary interpretation was irrational and unreasonable. * * *

… [T]he present record does not permit identification of the number of individuals who were the subject of adverse action based on application of respondent’s erroneous rule within the specified time period. The petition seeks a judgment directing respondent to identify all individuals meeting the characteristics of the proposed class and, in her brief on appeal, she again seeks discovery regarding class size. Timely requests for disclosure on the issue of numerosity must be granted … . Matter of Stewart v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 04609, Third Dept 6-21-18

​SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTIONS, DISCOVERY , NUMEROSITY, IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))/CLASS ACTIONS (DISCOVERY, NUMEROSITY, IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CLASS ACTIONS, NUMEROSITY,  IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))/NUMEROSITY (CLASS ACTIONS, DISCOVERY,  IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT))

,

PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to the renewed statute of limitations under the Son of Sam Law to seek earned and unearned income in the account of an inmate convicted of murder in 1986:

Generally, a crime victim of a violent felony offense has 10 years from the date of the crime to bring a civil action against the individual convicted of said crime to recover money damages for any injury or loss resulting therefrom (see CPLR 213-b [2]; Executive Law § 632-a [1] [d], [e] [i] [A]; Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [a]). The Son of Sam Law, however, creates a renewed limitations period whereby a crime victim may bring an action within three years of the discovery of “funds of a convicted person” (Executive Law § 632-a [3]). Here, the subject crimes occurred in 1986 … , thus, the statute of limitations has long since passed. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, however, the applicability of the extended statute of limitations provided for in Executive Law § 632-a (3) is not tethered to the $10,000 requirement that triggers the notice provisions of the statute… . Moreover, although Executive Law § 632-a does not statutorily mandate the type of notice that was provided for here, it does not prohibit it either. Thus, having received notice of newly discovered “funds of a convicted person” … , respondent’s victims are entitled to the benefit of the extended limitations period, without regard to the amount of funds in respondent’s inmate account.

Next, to the extent that respondent argues that his earned income should be excluded from any future recovery, and, thus, excluded from the purview of the subject preliminary injunction, this Court has previously held that “[t]he distinction between earned and unearned income is relevant only to determine whether petitioner must be notified, and has no effect on the ability of a crime victim or a victim’s representative to recover such income in a civil action” … . Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Vigo, 2018 NY Slip Op 04608, Third Dept 6-21-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SON OF SAM LAW, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))/SON OF SAM LAW (PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SON OF SAM LAW,  PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank was required to provide notice of its motions for an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure which were made more than a year after defendant’s default. Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate the order of reference and judgment of foreclosure should have been granted. The court noted that the failure of notice was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

The defendant was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s motions for an order of reference and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that such notice to a defendant who has not appeared is required “if more than one year has elapsed since the default.” Here, the defendant defaulted in November 2009, and the plaintiff moved for an order of reference in March 2013, more than three years later. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the issue of its failure to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(1) may be raised for the first time on appeal … . The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders the resulting order void … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Reese, 2018 NY Slip Op 04527, Second Dept 6-20-18

​FORECLOSURE (BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant (Koonin), the owner/operator of a car involved in an accident with plaintiff, had violated discovery orders and was guilty of willful or contumacious conduct warranting sanction. Supreme Court both struck Konnin’s answer and precluded Koonin from submitting any evidence at trial. The Second Department held that striking the answer was an abuse of discretion:

“The nature and degree of a penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 for discovery violations is addressed to the court’s discretion” … . “The general rule is that the court will impose a sanction commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish and go no further than that” … . This Court is vested with corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court, even in the absence of abuse… .

In light of Koonin’s failure to comply with multiple court orders and so-ordered stipulations directing him to appear for the EBT, the Supreme Court properly concluded that Koonin engaged in willful and contumacious conduct… . However, under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to strike Koonin’s answer in light of the fact that the court also granted those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to preclude Koonin from offering any evidence at the time of trial … . Chowdhury v Hudson Val. Limousine Serv., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04526, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126 (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUDE, MOTION TO  (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER, MOTION TO STRIKE  (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for leave to replead a private nuisance and trespass action should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged defendants had negligently planted and watered on their side of plaintiffs’ retaining wall, damaging the wall:

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to replead … . The standard to be applied on such a motion “is consistent with the standard governing motions for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 3025″… . In particular, such motions “should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, unless the proposed amendment is devoid of merit or palpably insufficient”… .

The proposed amended complaint alleged that the defendants had (1) engaged in “digging, excavating, grading and altering the soil, past the property line with [the] plaintiffs’ property and abutting [the plaintiffs’] property and wall,” (2) planted bushes, shrubs, and trees, and added significant amounts of mulch on the plaintiffs’ property, near the property line, and along the plaintiffs’ wall, and (3) excessively watered the location where the work was performed. The amended complaint further alleged that the “lateral load and pressure has been increased as a result of the planting of trees, bushes, shrubs and plants and the lack of drainage” so as to damage the plaintiffs’ retaining wall. The complaint alleges that this conduct was negligent, and that it constituted a private nuisance and trespass. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, these amended causes of action were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit … , and no unfair prejudice or surprise to the defendants would arise from permitting the amendment … . Chaikin v Karipas, 2018 NY Slip Op 04525, Second Dept 6-20-18

​REAL PROPERTY (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRESPASS (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RETAINING WALL  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence at trial should not have been granted. Plaintiff had failed to provide discovery and failed to appear for her court ordered deposition three times. A so-ordered stipulation was entered requiring plaintiff to be deposed on or before March 16, 2015, at a time and place to be agreed upon. Defendant moved to preclude when plaintiff did not appear on March 16, 2015. The court noted that no date for the deposition had been agreed to and therefore preclusion was not warranted:

When a litigant fails to comply with the terms of a conditional order of preclusion, the terms of that order become absolute … . However, the burden of establishing noncompliance rests with the party seeking preclusion … . Because the remedy of preclusion is the functional equivalent of striking a party’s pleading… , it may not be granted where the party can demonstrate a justifiable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense … .

ere, the so-ordered stipulation did not set a time, date, or place for the plaintiff’s deposition, instead stating merely that the plaintiff’s deposition was to be held “on or before” March 16, 2015, “at a time and location to be agreed upon.” In light of this, the defendants’ minimal assertion that the plaintiff failed to appear, which relied on the hearsay assertion of an unnamed employee of defense counsel, was insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff willfully and contumaciously violated the so-ordered stipulation … . Similarly, the defendants did not allege in their motion that the plaintiff had failed to provide the outstanding written discovery that was included in the so-ordered stipulation. Therefore, since the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff knew when and where to appear for her deposition, there was no evidence of ongoing willful or contumacious conduct … . Cannon v 111 Fulton St. Condominium, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04523, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUDE, MOTION TO (PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126  (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT  (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (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