You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the relation-back doctrine did not apply to the attempts to amend the complaint in this Worker’s Compensation trust action. The trust was formed as self-insurance for Workers’ Compensation claims, but was determined to owe the Workers’ Compensation Board $220 million. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here.  It comprehensively addresses the criteria for amending complaints, the relation-back doctrine, the General Business Law section 350 cause of action, and the corporate alter ego (piercing the corporate veil) pleading requirements:

“[T]he rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . A claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit where it would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. …

Where the issue is whether a claim may be interposed against a defendant who was named as a party before the statute of limitations expired, the query is limited to whether the earlier complaint “gave notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … . …

“The relation back doctrine permits a [plaintiff] to amend a [complaint] to add a [defendant] even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the [plaintiff] can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added [defendant] is united in interest with a previously named [defendant], and (3) that the later-added [defendant] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [plaintiff] as to the later-added [defendant’s] identity, the [action] would have also been brought against him or her” … . …

The corporate veil will be pierced and liability imposed when either (1) there is complete domination of a corporation by an individual or another corporation with respect to the transaction being attacked that resulted in a fraud or wrong against the complaining party, or (2) “when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . Here, the proposed complaint alleges only that [the two entities] had common owners, officers and directors and that they shared the same office space, addresses and telephone numbers. Such allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to plead the elements required to establish alter ego liability … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03196, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PLEADING, ALTER EGO, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATE VEIL, PIERCING (PLEADING,  CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the “John Doe” defendant named in a timely filed complaint did not refer to the limited liability company named in the complaint filed after the statute of limitations had run:

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was served after the statutory limitations period had expired. Plaintiff’s claims arose on January 14, 2008. The original complaint in this action, which was filed on January 6, 2014 (just days before the six-year statute of limitations expired), did not name Stack’s LLC as a defendant, nor did it name defendant Stack’s LLC (Delaware). The amended complaint, which for the first time named Stack’s LLC (Delaware) as a defendant, was not filed until January 24, 2014 — more than a week after the statute had run. Plaintiff cannot properly rely on CPLR 1024 as a shield from the statute of limitations. Even assuming that the appellation “John Doe” referred to a corporation rather than a natural person, the complaint’s description of the John Doe defendant was not described in such a way as to fairly apprise Stack’s LLC (Delaware) that it was an intended defendant … . Thus, the inadequate description rendered the action jurisdictionally defective … . Markov v Stack’s LLC (Delaware), 2018 NY Slip Op 03238, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 1024 (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/JOHN DOE (COMPLAINTS, (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINTS  (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should have been granted;

The motion court exercised its discretion in an improvident manner in light of defendants’ demonstration that the convenience of material nonparty witnesses would be better served by the change … . Defendants submitted the affidavits of four first responders and plaintiff’s coworker, all of whom averred that they would testify as witnesses but would be inconvenienced by traveling to New York County. The accident occurred in Sullivan County, and other than one defendant’s registered principal place of business, and one of plaintiff’s physicians maintaining an office in the county, this matter has no contact with New York County (… . Plaintiff’s argument that the affidavits submitted by defendants were not sufficiently detailed is unpersuasive, and plaintiff offers nothing to rebut defendants’ assertions that his coworker, the first responders, and the sheriff who investigated the accident were material witnesses, as they averred in their affidavits … . Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that he has alleged violations of the Labor Law, and thus liability may be resolved prior to trial, is not relevant … . Taylor v Montreign Operating Co., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03222, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/WITNESSES, CONVENIENCE OF (VENUE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE  (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))

,

BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the three-year statute of limitations applies to no-fault claims against a self-insurer. The court reasoned that the self-insurance option is a creature of statute, not a contract:

We conclude that the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2), which governs disputes with respect to penalties created by statute, should control this case. There is no dispute “that it is the gravamen or essence of the cause of action that determines the applicable Statute of Limitations” … , or that a three-year limitations period applies to “an action to recover upon a liability. . . created or imposed by statute” … . Moreover, although the three-year period of limitation in “CPLR 214 (2) does not automatically apply to all causes of action in which a statutory remedy is sought” … , that condition does attach to instances in which “liability would not exist but for a statute” (id.).

The no-fault benefits in dispute are not provided by a contract with a private insurer. Instead defendant has met its statutory obligation by self-insuring. No-fault is a creature of statute … . Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03093, CtApp 5-1-18

​INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/CPLR 214 (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/NO-FAULT (BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))/SELF-INSURER  (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP))

, , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to allege there was a waiver of the requirement that the option to renew the lease be in writing. Therefore the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The motion to amend the complaint was properly denied because the amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The proposed amendment did not allege the existence of a specific agreement with the defendant. However, the motion to amend was not frivolous conduct and Supreme Court should not have awarded sanctions to defendant:

“Although a party may waive his or her rights under an agreement or decree, waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … . Moreover, with respect to the plaintiff’s allegations that [defendant’s representative] stated that the defendant would not object to the assignment [of the lease to the prospective purchaser of plaintiff’s business], subject to, inter alia, a credit check, “a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . …

The plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was palpably insufficient and devoid of merit. The plaintiff failed to allege that (1) it actually came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser six months prior to the expiration of the lease, (2) it gave the defendant notice of its intention to exercise the option within six months of the expiration of the lease, irrespective of whether it came to an agreement with the proposed purchaser, or (3) the proposed purchaser was creditworthy. …

… [T]he plaintiff’s conduct in moving for leave to amend the complaint and/or replead was not, under the circumstances, “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) … . NHD Nigani, LLC v Angelina Zabel Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03135, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SANCTIONS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to remove a personal injury action from Civil Court to Supreme Court (King’s County) should not have been granted because no motion to amend the ad damnum clause was made. The court noted that because the defendant was never served with notice of entry of the order granting plaintiff’s motion, the notice of appeal was timely filed:

The plaintiff … moved pursuant to CPLR 325(b) to remove the action to the Supreme Court, Kings County. In the order appealed … , the Supreme Court granted the motion. It is undisputed that a written notice of entry of the order … was never served on the defendant.

Since the defendant was not served with a proper notice of entry, the defendant’s time to appeal never commenced running, and its notice of appeal was therefore timely filed (see CPLR 5513[a]…).

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325(b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the plaintiff’s motion to remove the action to the Supreme Court should have been denied … . Hart v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03123, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/REMOVAL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 325 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petitioner credit union (Progressive) which holds security interests in over 1400 taxicab medallions as collateral for over $700 million in loans did not have standing to contest the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commissions (TLC) ruling allowing Uber to pick up passengers via smartphone:

Although it is clear that Progressive would suffer an injury different from that of the public at large, it failed to adequately allege that it would suffer direct harm as a result of the TLC’s purported failure to enforce taxicab medallion owners’ exclusive right to hails. Progressive’s alleged injury—the “deteriorating financial condition of [its] medallion loan portfolio”—is an indirect consequence of the injuries that it alleged were suffered by medallion owners … . …

The alleged impairment of Progressive’s security interests in thousands of taxicab medallions does not fall within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by the … laws and rules [governing the TLC]. … .

… Progressive failed to demonstrate that the interests it sought to assert, i.e., protecting medallion owners’ exclusive right to hails, were germane to its organizational purposes and that its “mission makes it an appropriate representative of its members’ interests” … . Matter of Melrose Credit Union v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03131, Second Dept 5-2-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), TAXIS, UBER, CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TAXIS, UBER, CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))/TAXIS CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))/UBER  CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice, wrongful death case should not have been granted. Decedent was suffering from a life-threatening but eminently treatable condition (unstable angina) when he saw the defendant doctor.  Decedent died three days later. The doctor testified decedent had refused to go to the hospital. Credibility issues were raised about the substance of the defendant’s testimony. The Fourth Department noted that credibility issues are for the jury and should not be considered on a motion to set aside a verdict:

Defendant testified at trial that he recognized the life-threatening condition and conveyed to decedent “that he should go to the hospital” (emphasis added). Defendant further testified that he knew that “there needed to be more testing done,” but that decedent “adamant[ly]” “refused” to go to the hospital and “didn’t give [defendant] a good reason why.” Defendant’s notes, however, do not reflect any urgency. Indeed, the only notation made by defendant concerning that conversation was, “Discussed admit on Fri of holiday [weekend], declined.”

Moreover, despite the fact that defendant claimed to have recognized the severity of decedent’s condition, he did not set up any follow-up appointment with a cardiologist for over five days and admitted that he was “surprised” to learn of decedent’s death three days after his appointment with decedent.

As with most wrongful death cases, this case is complicated by the death of decedent, the only person who could have directly refuted defendant’s factual testimony. The Noseworthy doctrine thus provides that in a wrongful death case, such as this, “a plaintiff is not held to as high a degree of proof of the cause of action as where an injured plaintiff can himself describe the occurrence” … . The doctrine “applies only to such factual testimony as the decedent might have testified to, had [he or she] lived’ ” … , and the “lesser degree of proof pertains to the weight which the circumstantial evidence may be afforded by the jury, not to the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet” … .

Here, the only direct testimony regarding whether defendant recognized the severity of decedent’s condition and explained that to him “came from defendant . . . and, implicit in the court’s findings is that his testimony was credible. Issues of credibility, however, are for the jury” … . We agree with plaintiff that there are issues with respect to defendant’s credibility, and those issues should not have been determined by the court. In our view, this is not a case in which there is “absolutely no showing of facts from which negligence may be inferred” … , and we thus conclude that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Bolin v Goodman, 2018 NY Slip Op 02920, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH,  CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the cause of action fOR medical malpractice stemming from an office visit within the limitations period was independently viable, and the continuous treatment doctrine rendered all the causes of action timely:

… [T]he claims based on allegations of negligent treatment during the January 2, 2013 office visit have an independent viability regardless of whether any prior alleged negligence is time-barred.

… [T]he record establishes that defendants provided continuous treatment to plaintiff for a condition, i.e., atrial fibrillation, until January 2, 2013; the alleged wrongful acts or omissions were related to that condition; and such treatment “gave rise to the . . . act, omission or failure” complained of … . Indeed, the record establishes that the alleged wrongful acts or omissions themselves ran continuously until January 2, 2013. We therefore reject defendants’ contention that the statute of limitations began to run at the time of the first prescription of Pradaxa on January 10, 2011. We conclude that the court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as this action was timely commenced within 2½ years of the cessation of defendants’ continuous treatment of plaintiff’s atrial fibrillation condition … . Phillips v Buffalo Heart Group, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 03055, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The jury found that the doctor’s postsurgical negligence (ordering an MRI of plaintiff’s hand rather than her wrist) was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries:

… [W]e conclude that the issues of negligence and proximate cause were not so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find one without the other… . 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 … , and we conclude that defendants are entitled to that presumption here.

We also agree with defendants that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and that the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s posttrial motion. It is well settled that a jury verdict will be set aside as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence at trial so preponderated in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Applying that principle here, we conclude that there is a fair interpretation of the evidence pursuant to which the jury could have found that, notwithstanding the error in ordering the incorrect MRI, defendant did not cause any postsurgery injuries alleged by plaintiff … . We further conclude that the “trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury’s acceptance of defendants’ case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence”… . Capierseo v Tomaino, 2018 NY Slip Op 02917, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH 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