You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the argument plaintiff did not allege in the bill of particulars that defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of a physician (Devlin) was raised for the first time in reply papers and, therefore, should not have been considered by the motion court. The Second Department went on to find that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not vicariously liable for Devlin’s actions should not have been granted. Whether Devlin acted as an agent for the hospital depended upon written agreements which were not submitted with the motion papers:

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief … . Since the plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to oppose the new argument in a surreply, the court should not have granted relief based upon that argument … .

… [T]he general rule is that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, but is one of a group of independent contractors … . However, a hospital may be vicariously liable if a nonemployee physician acted as its agent or if it exercised control over the physician … . Here, Devlin was an intensivist employed by the defendant Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C. (hereinafter Nassau Chest Physicians), who cared for [plaintiff] in the Hospital’s intensive care unit after surgery was performed. She was the sole intensivist on duty for all four of the Hospital’s intensive care units during her shift. Devlin only worked at the Hospital; she did not work for Nassau Chest Physicians at any other site. The Hospital claimed that she was not under its control and not its agent. However, the Hospital’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians and Devlin’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians were governed by written agreements, and those written agreements were not submitted in support of the motion. Since the defendants failed to submit this or other evidence establishing, prima facie, that Devlin was not under the Hospital’s control and not its agent when she rendered care to Castro, they failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Castro v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 03503, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was not a sufficient excuse for plaintiff’s failure to enter a default judgment in an action which alleged defendants failed to pay plaintiff the statutory minimum wage:

“CPLR 3215(c) provides that [i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'” … . This statute is strictly construed, as “[t]he language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory inasmuch as courts shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . Moreover, CPLR 3215(c) expressly provides that a court may dismiss a complaint as abandoned “upon its own initiative or on motion.” The statute further provides, however, that the failure to timely seek a default may be excused if ” sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'”… . To establish the sufficient cause required by CPLR 3215(c), “the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action” … . ” The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . While a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, such excuse must be supported by detailed allegations of fact explaining the law office failure … .

Here, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to move for the entry of a default judgment and, thereupon, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. CPLR 2004 allows a court to “extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown.” “In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the opponent of the motion” … . …

The plaintiff’s excuse of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse, as it was vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated … . The excuse was contained in a brief paragraph in the supporting affirmation of an associate who stated, in sum and substance, that the attorney who commenced the action left the employ of the law firm of record, and the plaintiff’s file was only discovered in May 2016 when the firm was relocating its offices. There was no affirmation from a principal of the law firm and no indication in the associate’s affirmation that he had any personal knowledge of the purported law office failure or that he was even employed by the firm at the time it allegedly occurred. The one-year period to move for the entry of a default judgment lapsed in August 2015, and there is no indication that the attorney had left prior thereto. Ibrahim v Nablus Sweets Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03515, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS ( LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that arguments first raised in reply papers were properly rejected:

After the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint … . … [T]he Supreme Court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint … .

More than eight months later, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment in her favor. After opposition papers were served, the plaintiff served a reply affirmation, in which she requested that the Supreme Court consider her motion to be one to vacate the order of dismissal, and thereupon, for leave to enter a default judgment in her favor. The court denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment in light of the dismissal order. The court also denied the plaintiff’s application to deem her motion to also be considered as one to vacate the dismissal order, and the plaintiff appeals from that portion of the order.

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds or evidence for, the motion … . Here, the plaintiff’s reply papers included new arguments in support of the motion, new grounds and evidence for the motion, and expressly requested relief that was dramatically unlike the relief sought in her original motion … . Therefore, those contentions, and the grounds and evidence in support of them, were not properly before the Supreme Court … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s application to deem her motion to also be considered as one to vacate the dismissal order. Lee v Law Offs. of Kim & Bae, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 03516, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERTY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERTY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and serve an amended answer should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and a potentially meritorious claim or defense … . “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits”… . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse … where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . “While it is generally within the discretion of the court to determine what constitutes a reasonable excuse, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised” … .

Here, the affidavits and documentary evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, taken together, set forth a detailed and credible explanation for the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing and for any delay in moving to vacate his default … . In addition, there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff, and no evidence that the defendant willfully defaulted or otherwise intended to abandon his defense of this action … . Furthermore, the defendant’s submissions demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the complaint … . Gately v Drummond, 2018 NY Slip Op 03507, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTORIZED SCAFFOLD BECAME STUCK AND PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED PUSHING IT FREE, THE INJURY FELL WITHIN THE GRAVITY-RELATED PROTECTIONS OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

… [T]he incident in which plaintiff was injured falls within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), because the scaffold proved inadequate to shield plaintiff from ” harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person'” … . The force of gravity caused the scaffold to swing into the recessed areas between the spandrels, necessitating that plaintiff and his coworker use their backs to exert force to swing the scaffold out again. Nevertheless, neither side is entitled to summary judgment, because an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries… . The testimony of plaintiff and his foreman conflict as to whether plaintiff had been instructed to push off the scaffold in the manner described. …

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars to add allegations that 2008 Building Code of New York City (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 3314.10.1 was violated … . Although plaintiff did not provide an excuse for his delay in seeking leave, the delay was relatively short, and defendants demonstrated no prejudice. The allegation that section 3314.10.1 was violated is consistent with plaintiff’s original theory that the scaffold, as installed, was deficient and inadequate. That section mandated that suspended scaffolds “be erected and operated in such a manner that suspension elements are vertical and in a plane parallel to the wall at all times.” Further, the evidence required to support this new allegation is contained in the record. Galvez v Columbus 95th St. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03484, First Dept 5-15-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MOTORIZED SCAFFOLD BECAME STUCK AND PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED PUSHING IT FREE, THE INJURY FELL WITHIN THE GRAVITY-RELATED PROTECTIONS OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTORIZED SCAFFOLD BECAME STUCK AND PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED PUSHING IT FREE, THE INJURY FELL WITHIN THE GRAVITY-RELATED PROTECTIONS OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (MOTION TO AMEND,  LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTORIZED SCAFFOLD BECAME STUCK AND PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED PUSHING IT FREE, THE INJURY FELL WITHIN THE GRAVITY-RELATED PROTECTIONS OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTORIZED SCAFFOLD BECAME STUCK AND PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED PUSHING IT FREE, THE INJURY FELL WITHIN THE GRAVITY-RELATED PROTECTIONS OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner, a private residential school for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Center for Discovery), had exhausted its administrative remedies in seeking reimbursement from the NYC Department of Education for providing 24-hour care for a student with autism (pursuant to an Individualized Education Plan or IEP). The matter was therefore sent back to Supreme Court. The First Department noted that, although estoppel is usually not available in an action against a governmental agency, it may be appropriate here based upon the respondent’s alleged promise to reimburse petitioner and petitioner’s reliance on that promise:

… [W]e disagree that the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies” precludes review of this case… .

A “final and binding” determination is one where the agency “reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury,” and the injury may not be “significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … .

Respondent reached a definitive position concerning reimbursement for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP that inflicted concrete injury on petitioner. Counsel’s … email clearly stated that the City would not be reimbursing petitioner for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP. Petitioner had no available means of seeking review of respondent’s decision from respondent or any other City or State agency empowered to review, overturn, or reverse the City’s determination concerning reimbursement for the services explicitly mandated by the City in the amended IEP. The email was thus the “final” determination of respondent City on the issue … . …

Petitioner … alleges that it relied on respondent’s representation that it would be reimbursed for the additional services mandated and provided under the amended IEP. While estoppel is generally not available in an action against a government agency, this case presents a factual dispute as to the applicability of the doctrine that must be determined upon remand … . Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v NYC Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03494, First Dept 5-15-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))

,

PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parties’ conduct after a purported termination of a shareholders’ agreement could indicate the parties intended the contract to continue (an implied contract). Defendant’s motion to dismiss this breach of contract action should not have been granted:

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, we construe the pleadings liberally, accept the allegations in the complaint to be true, give [the] plaintiff[] the benefit of any favorable inferences and ‘determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory'”… . Supreme Court held that defendant could not have breached the shareholders’ agreement in 2016, as the agreement explicitly terminated when he became the “only . . . remaining [s]hareholder” of the dealerships in 2007. It is true that “[w]hen a contract is terminated, such as by expiration of its own terms, the rights and obligations thereunder cease” … . Nevertheless, “the conduct of parties to a contract following its termination may demonstrate that they intended to create an implied contract to be governed by the terms of the expired contract, and whether there was a ‘meeting of the minds’ required for formation of such an enforceable agreement is generally a question of fact” … . It is undisputed that defendant continued to make monthly payments as required by the shareholders’ agreement after the shares were conveyed, and this ongoing compliance with the agreement’s terms required further inquiry into “the conduct of the parties to determine whether the terms of the [shareholders’ agreement] continue[d] to apply” … . Supreme Court accordingly erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that defendant could not have breached the terms of the shareholders’ agreement due to its termination. Harris v Reagan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03408, Third Dept 5-10-18

​CONTRACT LAW (PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211(PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/IMPLIED CONTRACT (PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant’s (Target’s) motion to change venue in this traffic accident case was properly granted:

Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting Target’s motion to change venue to Suffolk County even though plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon Target’s principal place of business at the time the action was commenced (see CPLR 503[a], [c]). The motor vehicle accident happened in Suffolk County, plaintiffs and codefendants live in that county, the decedent received her medical treatment there … . Target also submitted the affidavits of two Suffolk County police officers, who averred that they were involved in the investigation including interviewing witnesses at the accident location and that they would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County because it would cause them to be absent from their police duties for a full day … .

That the police officers signed affidavits in favor of the motion to change venue establishes that they were aware of the action and demonstrates that they are willing to testify at trial. It was proper for the motion court to consider the police officers’ convenience, because their testimony regarding their investigation as to how the accident happened bears on liability… . Furthermore, the police officers’ affidavits are not insufficient because they do not set forth their home addresses, since it is undisputed that they work in Suffolk County … . Kochan v Target Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03445, First Dept 5-10-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 503 (VENUE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS, ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the trial court in this medical malpractice action did not err in allowing the continued participation of the attorney for defendant hospital (AMH) after the action against the hospital had been dismissed. After the dismissal of the action against the hospital, the only liability the hospital faced was vicarious liability for the actions of its physician employee, who was represented by another attorney. The Third Department further found that the plaintiffs’ request, made for the first time at trial, to call an expert to establish, by cell phone and tower information (GIS), the location of a physician who had been called to assist at the hospital was properly denied:

Following the dismissal of all claims of direct negligence asserted against AMH, plaintiffs renewed their motion to have the role of AMH’s counsel limited. While the dismissal of the direct negligence claims rendered AMH’s potential liability purely vicarious in nature, we are unable to conclude that Supreme Court’s refusal to limit the role of AMH’s counsel during the remainder of the trial to essentially that of a spectator was in error. Because AMH’s liability would be determined by the jury’s findings in relation to plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against Olsen [its physician-employee], AMH was entitled to participate in the efforts to defeat those claims … . Supreme Court promised to exert control over the cross-examination of the remaining witnesses by AMH’s counsel, indicating its intent to prevent any attempt by AMH to “reiterate or to plow ground that has already been plowed by one side or the other,” and the record reflects that counsel’s cross-examination of these witnesses, if any, was limited and dealt primarily with different material than that explored on direct examination. The balanced approach taken by the court served to ensure defendants’ valued right to representation by counsel of their choosing while also protecting plaintiffs against the possibility of unduly cumulative and duplicative proof … . Under these circumstances, we find no “clear abuse of discretion” in the course of action taken by Supreme Court nor any prejudice to plaintiffs as a result thereof … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs first notified defendants of their intention to call a GIS expert more than three years after defendants’ respective demands for expert disclosure and during the midst of the trial. Notably, [the physcian’s] cell phone number was provided to plaintiffs during a pretrial deposition more than a year and a half earlier and, thus, plaintiffs possessed the essential facts necessary to investigate the matter — and, if necessary, to retain an expert — long before trial. Plaintiffs’ claim that they did not realize the significance of the calls, and thus the need to subpoena the phone records, until shortly before trial did not, as Supreme Court found, constitute good cause for the delay … . Moreover, we agree with Supreme Court that, given the complex and technical issues presented by the proposed GIS testimony, the mid-trial disclosure of this expert would have prejudiced defendants … . Lasher v Albany Mem. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03402, Third Dept 5-10-18

​ATTORNEYS (ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that because plaintiff had filed his employment discrimination complaint with the NYC Division of Human Rights (Division), he was precluded under the election of remedies doctrine from bringing a court action pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

“Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with [the Division] precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts”… . The election of remedies doctrine does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, but rather deprives a plaintiff of a cause of action … . Here, the plaintiff’s causes of action are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the proceedings before the Division. Therefore, the plaintiff is barred from asserting those claims under the NYCHRL in this action … . Luckie v Northern Adult Day Health Care Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 03349, Second Dept 5-9-18

​EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ELECTION OF REMEDIES, (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ELECTION OF REMEDIES, DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ELECTION OF REMEDIES (DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (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