You are here: / Civil Procedure

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))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted. Defendant had not changed the address for service on file with the Secretary of State and did not receive the summons and complaint. Plaintiff knew where defendant’s place of business was and had communicated with defendant at that address:

A defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he or she obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment upon a finding of the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 317 …). …

There is no evidence in the record that the defendant or its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time to defend this action … . Although the defendant did not explain why it failed to update its address with the Secretary of State, “there is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse’ for its delay” … . …

… [T]hrough the affidavit of the defendant’s principal averring that the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the parties’ oral lease, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Benchmark Farm, Inc. v Red Horse Farm, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04522, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))

,

PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s (BT Holdings’) cause of action for a declaratory judgment declaring a local law invalid should have been dismissed because petitioner did not file a notice of claim as required by CPLR 9802:

Contrary to BT Holdings’ contention, the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to the causes of action for declaratory relief … . Matter of BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2018 NY Slip Op 04544, Second Dept 6-20-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statutory criteria in CPLR 3216 were not met and the court should not have dismissed the action for neglect to prosecute:

The Supreme Court issued a compliance conference order dated December 3, 2014, directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue on or before May 15, 2015, and warning that the failure to do so “shall result in dismissal of the action for unreasonably neglecting to proceed, without further notice.” …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . “Effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216” … . One such precondition is that where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, as here, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the compliance conference order did not set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff. Accordingly, since one of the statutory preconditions to dismissal was not met, the court should not have directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Goetz v Public Serv. Truck Renting, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine operated to toll the statute of limitations in this breach of contract/breach of warranty of habitability action involving damage to plaintiff’s cooperative apartment during a 2004 renovation. Plaintiff alleged the damage had never been repaired and brought his action in 2016. The Second Department held that the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations but damages were recoverable for only the six years preceding the commencement of the action:

The continuing wrong doctrine “is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . “In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants’ contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises … . However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff’s recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action … . Garron v Bristol House, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04533, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF  (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a change of venue on discretionary grounds was not brought in the correct county and should not have been granted. The issue was properly before the appellate court despite not having been raised below:

It is undisputed that, pursuant to CPLR 503(a), venue of the Ulster County Action is properly in Ulster County, where Bacci, one of the Ulster plaintiffs, resided at the time the action was commenced … . A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county (see CPLR 2212[a]…). The Fenstermen parties, therefore, were required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) either in Ulster County, where the Ulster County Action was pending, in another county in the 3rd Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Ulster County (see CPLR 2212[a] …). Since Ulster County and Nassau County are not contiguous, and Nassau County is not in the 3rd Judicial District, the Fensterman parties’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County … . Although not argued by the parties in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, but argued on appeal, we reach this issue in the exercise of our discretion because it appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided or explained if raised in the Supreme Court … . Fensterman v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 503 (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2212  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/VENUE  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification under CPLR 901 for employees alleging defendant did not pay prevailing wages required by article I, § 17 of the New York Constitution and section 220 (3) of the Labor Law:

… [T]he court erred in determining that plaintiffs failed to establish the first and second CPLR 901 prerequisites, numerosity and commonality. Plaintiffs established the numerosity prerequisite by submitting evidence of approximately 350 class members at a minimum … . Plaintiffs established the commonality prerequisite because one common legal issue dominates the claims of all putative class members, i.e., whether similarly situated employees who worked on public projects were deprived of the prevailing wages to which they were entitled… . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the fact that the amount of damages will vary among the putative class members does not prevent this lawsuit from going forward as a class action … . Vandee v Suit-Kote Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04456, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 901 (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/CLASS ACTION (CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer could not completely disclaim coverage of injuries suffered by the defendant at the insured home (owned by the McCabe’s). McCabe was convicted of assaulting and strangling the defendant. Defendant alleges that after McCabe assaulted her she fell over a tripping hazard in the McCabe home and was injured in the fall. Although the insurer can properly disclaim coverage for any injuries inflicted by McCabe’s intentional criminal conduct under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the insurer could not, at this early stage, disclaim coverage for any injuries that might have been caused by McCabe’s negligence (tripping hazard, failure to seek medical care, etc.):

Plaintiff asserts that, to convict McCabe, the criminal jury must have disbelieved his version of events. It is possible, however, that the jury disbelieved only some portions of his testimony … . The jury may have found it incredible that all of defendant’s facial and head injuries were caused when she tried to walk on her own, fell over a raised threshold in the doorway and hit her head on a cinder block wall during that fall. It is also possible that the jury believed that McCabe slammed defendant’s head into the ground or a wall, thereby causing some of her injuries, but the jury did not render any findings regarding what happened after the choking and slamming, such as whether defendant then got up, tried to walk and fell. To establish the convictions, it was unnecessary for the jury to have made findings regarding whether McCabe created a tripping hazard, allowed defendant to walk on her own after he had rendered her partially incapacitated or failed to seek medical help for her after the criminal assault. Hence, the issues as to insurance coverage and exclusions are not identical to the issues decided in McCabe’s criminal trial, and defendants here did not have a full and fair opportunity in the criminal trial to address some of the issues regarding McCabe’s negligence allegedly committed before and after the criminal assault. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no possible factual or legal basis to support a finding that some of defendant’s injuries were unintended by McCabe, so as to bar coverage under the policy exclusion … . Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply here, except as to the more narrow issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment or a declaratory judgment at this early stage of this coverage action … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Chauncey McCabe, 2018 NY Slip Op 04416, Third Dept 6-14-18

​INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action for conversion and breach of a fiduciary duty was timely. Plaintiff was the beneficiary of a structured settlement with payments which were to begin in 1998 and continue for the rest of his life. Defendant, who was the custodian of the structured settlement while plaintiff was minor, did not inform the plaintiff of the settlement and used the funds for her own purposes. The Second Department held that conversion sounds in fraud. Therefore the six-year statute of limitations applied and the statute did not begin to run until plaintiff became aware of fraud in 2013:

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, since the cause of action for conversion is based upon fraud, it is governed by the statute of limitations period for fraud set forth in CPLR 213(8) … . The limitations period for fraud under CPLR 213(8) also applies to the breach of fiduciary duty causes of action inasmuch as the allegations of fraud are essential to those claims … .

Pursuant to CPLR 213(8), “the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” “A cause of action based upon fraud accrues, for statute of limitations purposes, at the time the plaintiff possesses knowledge of facts from which the fraud could have been discovered with reasonable diligence'” … .

Here, the plaintiff established that he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud until 2013, when he learned for the first time that he was the beneficiary of a structured settlement from which he was entitled to receive millions of dollars in monthly and periodic lump-sum payments. Monteleone v Monteleone, 2018 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 6-13-18

​FRAUD (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CONVERSION  (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FRAUD, CONVERSION, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FRAUD, CONVERSION, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONVERSION, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CONVERSION (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FRAUD,  SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 213 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FRAUD, CONVERSION, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (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