You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined two statements alleged by the plaintiffs to have been defamatory were nonactionable opinion (other defamatory statements alleged in the complaint properly survived the motion to dismiss). The court noted that plaintiffs have no burden to prove the allegations in a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss, and further found that the Communications Decency Act did not shield the defendants from liability:

Here, the allegedly defamatory statements set forth in paragraphs 53 and 55 of the complaint—which asserted, among other things, that [the defendant president of the cooperative] was “attempting insult of American laws & freedom” and was attempting to “destroy Trump Village 4 and sell our buildings to the highest bidder after we are bankrupt”—constituted nonactionable expressions of opinion. The statements … were not easily understandable, were largely incapable of being proven true or false, and, in context, signaled to the average reader that the statements were opinion, not fact. …

We reject the defendants’ contention that the allegations of defamation fail to state a cause of action because their statements were protected by qualified privileges, and insufficient facts were alleged to show that they spoke with malice necessary to defeat those privileges … . Since “the burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on [such] a motion'” … . Here, to the extent that the defendants’ statements may be shielded by any qualified privileges, the allegations of malice that were set forth in the complaint and in an affidavit submitted by [the cooperative president] preclude dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action ,,, ,

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Communications Decency Act (47 USC § 230) did not warrant dismissal of the complaint at this juncture. A defendant is “immune from state law liability if (1) it is a provider or user of an interactive computer service’; (2) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as a publisher or speaker’; and (3) the action is based on information provided by another information content provider'” … . “[I]f a defendant service provider is itself the content provider,’ it is not shielded from liability” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants authored the defamatory statements, which would mean that the defendants were content providers within the meaning of the statute … . Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v Bezvoleva, 2018 NY Slip Op 03389, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DEFAMATION (TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/OPINION (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (DEFAMATION, TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of a defendant in this foreclosure action precluded the court from hearing and determining plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, even with respect to the other defendants:

As a general matter, “the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a legal representative for that decedent pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . “[A]ny determination rendered without such a substitution will generally be deemed a nullity”… .

Here, the defendant Michael Costello died before the plaintiff’s motion was made and before the orders appealed from were issued. Since a substitution had not been made, the Supreme Court should not have determined the merits of the plaintiff’s motion, even to the extent that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants … . Furthermore, although this Court has recognized, under certain limited circumstances, that “where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of a case, there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution” … , those circumstances are not present here … . American Airlines Fed. Credit Union v Costello, 2018 NY Slip Op 03335, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (DEATH OF A PARTY, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1015  (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/DEATH OF A PARTY  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTITUTION (DEATH OF A PARTY, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant (Nayak) in this medical malpractice action was properly granted, even though the statute of limitations expired in the interim between filing the summons and complaint and the motion to extend. Plaintiff’s attempt at timely service was found to be defective:

The plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Nayak with the summons and complaint was properly granted in the interest of justice … . When deciding whether to grant an extension of time to serve a summons and complaint in the interest of justice, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … Here, the record established that the plaintiff exercised diligence in timely filing, and in attempting to serve Nayak and notify Nayak and her insurance carrier of the summons and complaint within the 120-day period following the filing of the summons and complaint, although the attempt to serve Nayak was ultimately deemed defective … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff cross-moved for relief, the plaintiff promptly cross-moved for an extension of time to serve Nayak, and there was no identifiable prejudice to Nayak attributable to the delay in service … . Furze v Stapen, 2018 NY Slip Op 03338, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/EXTEND TIME TO SERVE (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 306-b (SERVICE OF PROCESS, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant insurance company’s connections to New York were insufficient to support long-arm jurisdiction:

[D]efendant … is incorporated in Canada, has its principal place of business in Canada, and is not authorized to do business in New York. Defendant issued a $10 million life insurance policy to a trust, designated on the policy application as the policy owner and beneficiary, which the record shows has its situs in New Jersey. The policy application was signed in New Jersey, and the receipt reflecting delivery of the policy identifies New Jersey as the place of execution. While the trustee may be a New York resident, he is neither the designated owner nor a beneficiary of the policy.

Plaintiff cites no authority to support its argument that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant because the policy insured the life of a New York resident. Nor do defendant’s purported ties to New York suffice. Plaintiff points out that the medical portion of the application was signed in New York by the insured and the medical examiner and that, before it was delivered to the trustee, the policy passed through two New York intermediaries. These transactions are not only too fleeting to provide a jurisdictional foundation, but are also not the acts from which plaintiff’s claims arise … . Even assuming, as the record suggests, that defendant assured plaintiff (which acquired ownership of the policy) of the incontestability of the policy by a letter faxed to a New York number, this is not sufficient to establish New York jurisdiction over defendant … . AMT Capital Holdings, S.A. v Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 2018 NY Slip Op 03318, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION ( DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 302 (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that a defendant company, IAI, which operates in Israel, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under the theory that defendant IAINA, which operates in New York, was a department of IAI. The court explained the relevant criteria. The court further held that a common interest privilege (with respect to alleged defamatory remarks regarding the plaintiff, defendant IAINA’s employee) does not insulate defendant from the alleged breach of a contractual non-disparagement clause:

Defendants established that IAI North America, Inc. (IAINA), which does business in the State of New York, is not a mere department of IAI, which operates primarily in Israel, and therefore that jurisdiction over IAINA is not jurisdiction over IAI … . The key executive personnel of the subsidiary were not assigned to their positions by the foreign parent, the subsidiary trained its own personnel, the parent did not write and publish all of the sales literature used by the subsidiary, and the subsidiary prepared its own financial statements … . … While IAINA is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAI, common ownership is “intrinsic to the parent-subsidiary relationship and, by [itself], not determinative”… . IAINA showed that it observed corporate formalities. Nothing in plaintiff’s affirmation indicates that IAI interferes in the selection and assignment of IAINA’s executive personnel, and the CEO of IAINA denied this. He also denied that IAI controlled IAINA’s marketing and operational policies. Plaintiff claimed that IAI had control over the approval of IAINA’s annual budget during the 11 years he worked at IAINA. However, this does not suffice … . …

IAINA … contends that the cause of action for breach of a non-disparagement clause should be dismissed because, even if it made disparaging remarks about plaintiff (its former employee), the remarks were privileged. However, the common interest privilege it relies on — which is part of the law of defamation — does not apply to a claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause … . Wolberg v IAI N. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03321, First Dept 5-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATIONS (JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAMATION (NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST,  A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. Although defendant foreign corporation did not have a place of business in New York County, it had designated New York County as the location of its business in its filing with the Secretary of State:

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as “[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located” … . Wakefern’s designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County … . Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333, First Dept 5-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, CORPORATION LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined law office failure was not sufficient to justify granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default judgment:

… [P]laintiffs’ counsel affirmed that he had timely prepared opposition papers, but due to law office failure, the nature of which counsel failed to describe in any detail, the papers were never filed. Counsel affirmed that he was under the impression the motion was still being considered by the court when he happened to discover the default order. He further affirmed that, despite defendants’ sworn affidavits of service, he was never served with the notices of entry of the default order.

Here, in addition to the untimeliness of this CPLR 5015 motion to vacate, the bare and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure are insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default … . Moreover, the record shows that plaintiffs had a prior pattern of dilatory conduct, indicating that the default was not an excusable isolated event or inadvertent error … Because plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to address whether they demonstrated a meritorious cause of action … . Fernandez v Santos, 2018 NY Slip Op 03326, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT,  MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE ( LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that essential evidence in reply papers was properly considered by the court because a surreply was allowed:

 … [T]o support amending a personal injury complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death, plaintiffs were required to submit “competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged malpractice and the death of the original plaintiff” … . The affirmation of plaintiffs’ expert, which stated that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the decedent’s injury led to his death, was sufficient, for the purposes of CPLR 3025(b), to establish a causal connection between the decedent’s death and the originally alleged negligence by defendants … . Plaintiff’s submission of the expert’s affirmation on reply is not fatal to the motion, because defendant was permitted to submit a surreply. Frangiadakis v 51 W. 81st St. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03331, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a battery cause of action against a teacher and a respondeat superior cause of action against the school should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendant teacher struck her on the back of her head. The complaint alleged a negligence cause of action. Prior to trial plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add the battery and respondeat superior causes of action. The motion was denied. The case went to trial and the jury rendered a defense verdict. Plaintiff will get a new trial on the two causes of action in the amended complaint:

It is well settled that, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted” … . Plaintiff established that the relation-back doctrine applied for statute of limitations purposes with respect to the battery cause of action, which was based on the same facts and occurrence as the negligence cause of action and thus related back to the original complaint (see CPLR 203 [f]…). In opposition to the cross motion, defendants failed to establish that they would be prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint … , inasmuch as the new causes of action were based upon the same facts as the negligence cause of action in the original complaint … .

Defendants argued in opposition to the cross motion that plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, but ” [m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side’ ” … . Therefore, although plaintiff provided no excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend, that is of no moment because, as noted above, defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by the delay … . Wojtalewski v Central Sq. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 03275, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 203 (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, RELATION-BACK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the jury verdict finding the will offered by petitioner had been duly executed was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The will was handwritten by petitioner, not decedent, three days before his death. The decedent, who was terminally ill, had moved to petitioner’s family-type adult home only three weeks before his death. One attesting witness had worked at the home for 28 years. The other attesting witness had lived at the home for seven years and was petitioner’s friend:

A verdict may be set aside as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence where “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … .. A jury verdict may be found to be against the weight of the evidence “where the proof so preponderated in favor of the unsuccessful party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . * * *

Upon this record, we cannot find legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding that the will had been duly executed … . Further, the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Matter of Fraccaro, 2018 NY Slip Op 03198, Third Dept 5-3-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/WILLS (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WILL, WRITTEN BY DECEDENT’S CARETAKER THREE DAYS BEFORE DEATH, WAS DULY EXECUTED (THIRD 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