You are here: / Civil Procedure

NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed a cross-motion for failure to specify the relief sought and the grounds for relief as required by CPLR 2214 (a):

CPLR 2214(a) provides that a notice of motion shall “specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor” … . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion on the ground that the plaintiff’s notice of cross motion was deficient … . The plaintiff’s notice of cross motion failed to sufficiently specify the relief sought, against whom it was sought, and the grounds therefor … . Although the plaintiff’s supporting papers supplied the missing information, a court is not required to comb through a litigant’s papers to find information that is required to be set forth in the notice of motion … . Abizadeh v Abizadeh, 2018 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-21-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF MOTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214(a) (NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to amend its answer should have been granted. No evidentiary showing of merit is required:

In the absence of “prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave” to amend a pleading, such applications “are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . Here, the court denied leave to amend the answer based upon its determination that the defendant had failed to lay a proper foundation, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, for the admission of a document which allegedly demonstrated that the defendant had paid real estate taxes on the subject property. However, “[n]o evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)” … . Since the defendant’s proposed counterclaim was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and since no prejudice or surprise would result from granting leave to amend the answer, the branch of the defendant’s cross motion seeking that relief should have been granted. 1259 Lincoln Place Corp. v Bank of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 02177, Second Dept 3-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (AMEND, NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025  (AMEND ANSWER, NO EVIDENTIARY SHOWING OF MERIT REQUIRED TO AMEND ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the town respondents violated General Municipal Law 239-m by not referring an application for an area variance by respondent mining operation  to the planning board. The violation was a jurisdictional defect that did not trigger the 30-day statute of limitations:

“General Municipal Law § 239-m requires that a municipal agency, before taking final action on an application for [land use] approval, refer that application to a county or regional planning board for its recommendation”… . It is undisputed that the ZBA (zoning board of appeals) did not refer the initial application for an area variance to the Cayuga County Planning Board (County Planning Board) before taking final action on that application. Contrary to the contention of the Town respondents, area variances are proposed actions for which referral is required under the statute … . “The alleged failure to comply with the referral provisions of the statute is not a mere procedural irregularity but is rather a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative act” … . Thus, the ZBA’s failure to refer the initial application for an area variance to the County Planning Board renders the subsequent approval by the ZBA “null and void” … . Matter of Fichera v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01843, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

ZONING (VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (ZONING, VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ZONING, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent which addresses many substantive procedural issues not summarized here, determined plaintiff’s attempt to file and serve an amended complaint was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 203 (f), “[a] claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.” It is well established that “the linchpin’ of the relation back doctrine [is] notice to the defendant within the applicable limitations period”… . Here, it is undisputed that the original complaint was never served on defendants. The original complaint thus did not give defendants notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended complaint. The claims in the amended complaint, therefore, are measured for timeliness by service (or filing in this case) of the amended complaint … . “Because no one was served until [after the statute of limitations expired], there is no basis to conclude that defendant[s] had any idea that a lawsuit was pending, much less that [they] would be . . . named [as] defendants,” within the applicable limitations period … . Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01827, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT))/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly refused to consider a new theory raised for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on a piece of trash on stairs. In opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment code violations and the absence of a handrail were alleged:

On their motion, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard.

A court should not consider the merits of a new theory of recovery, raised for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, that was not pleaded in the complaint … . As such, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to consider the plaintiff’s new theory of recovery, raised for the first time in opposition to the defendants’ motion, based on alleged building code violations related to the lack of a handrail on the subject staircase, since this theory was not pleaded in her amended complaint or set forth in her bill of particulars. Mazurek v Schoppmann, 2018 NY Slip Op 01601, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the defendant New York State Transit Authority (NYSTA) was not entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence claims on collateral estoppel, governmental immunity, or factual grounds. The decision includes good explanations of all the legal principles involved. Claimants lost summary judgment motions in a lawsuit against other defendants in state court, and then brought this action against the NYSTA in the Court of Claims. The Second Department held that the standards for liability of the NYSTA as the owner of the construction site were not the same as the standards of liability for the defendants in the state action. Therefore the collateral estoppel doctrine did not apply. The court also held that the NYSTA was acting in a proprietary, not a governmental, capacity. Therefore governmental immunity was not invoked:

Regarding whether NYSTA had the authority to exercise supervision or control over the performance of the claimants’ work, we find that it met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it had no such authority … . In opposition, however, the claimants raised a triable issue of fact regarding NYSTA’s involvement at the work site … . Regarding the alleged dangerous condition of the work site itself, NYSTA, in support of its motion, argued only that it could not be held liable for failing to remediate soil containing chemicals because the claimants’ job was to remedy that very condition. We find that NYSTA failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the claimants were injured from defective or hazardous conditions that were part of or inherent in the work they were performing… , or from conditions that were readily observable… . In addition, the claimants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether their injuries were caused by a hazardous condition that they were not specifically hired to remediate … . Indeed, whether a dangerous condition is within the scope of the work an employee or contractor is hired to perform is a fact-specific inquiry … . Grasso v New York State Thruway Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01453, Second Dept 3-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, RELEVANT LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s action against the defendant school district, seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer is not obligated to indemnify the defendants for a settlement reached in mediation, should not have been dismissed. The underlying action alleged the school district did not protect the plaintiffs from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination. The insurer defended the action but reserved the right to disclaim coverage. A $3,000,000 (plus $1,480,000 attorney’s fees) settlement was reached. The Second Department determined the documentary evidence submitted by the school district, i.e., the insurance policies, did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Therefore the motion to dismiss the insurer’s declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) should not have been granted:

The plaintiffs in the underlying action … alleged that repeated and frequent incidents of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination against them by other students, which were reported to school officials on numerous occasions and directly observed on other occasions by school personnel, gave rise to an inference that the defendants “intended for the harassment to occur” based upon the defendants’ practices, policies, and customs in dealing with reports and observations of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, that the defendants “intentionally discriminated” against the plaintiffs, that the defendants’ conduct “aided and incited” unlawful discrimination, and that the defendants’ acts and omissions were “undertaken recklessly and with the intent to engage in wrongful conduct.”

While “it is not legally impossible to find accidental results flowing from intentional causes, i.e., that the resulting damage was unintended although the original act or acts leading to the damage were intentional”… , the insurance policies do not conclusively establish that the plaintiff is obligated to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action, and the other evidence submitted by the defendants did not utterly refute the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Whether the incidents set forth in the amended complaint in the underlying action were accidents present questions of fact which cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) … . Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 01565, Second Dept 3-7-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s foreclosure action was time-barred. Although the action would have been timely against the estate of defendant’s (Kess’s) wife because of the 18-month post-death statute of limitations toll in CPLR 210 (b), plaintiff did not demonstrate Kess was representing his wife’s estate:

…Kess demonstrated that the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]) began to run on May 6, 2008, when the plaintiff accelerated the mortgage debt and commenced the 2008 foreclosure action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant foreclosure action until more than six years later, Kess sustained his initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that this action was untimely … . …

CPLR 210(b) provides that “[t]he period of eighteen months after the death . . . of a person against whom a cause of action exists is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced against his [or her] executor or administrator.” The statute plainly is limited in scope to the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate and does not extend to other defendants in the same action … . Consequently, CPLR 210(b) could not extend the statute of limitations period as to Kess individually. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that Kess was the administrator or executor of his deceased wife’s estate, a point which Kess denied in reply to the plaintiff’s opposition. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Kess, 2018 NY Slip Op 01498, Second Dept 3-7-18

FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, ORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 210 (b)  (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, ALTHOUGH CPLR 210 (b) TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HUSBAND REPRESENTED HIS WIFE’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s(Kaufman’s) motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been granted. There were written contracts between plaintiff and Kaufman indicating plaintiff was an independent contractor. Plaintiff alleged he was a partner, entitled to 50% of the income. The proof submitted by plaintiff, a vague email and testimony by an accountant that plaintiff and Kaufman often received equal pay, was deemed insufficient:

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party”… . In considering such a motion, ” the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion, made at the close of trial, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The existence of a partnership agreement between Kaufman and the plaintiffs with respect to Kaufman’s businesses cannot be inferred from the evidence presented at the trial. The parties’ relationship was governed by written agreements. The 2005 email which makes reference to splitting income is not sufficient to draw such an inference. Although an email message can constitute a binding contract if it sets forth the material terms of the agreement, and contains an expression of mutual assent … , the email in question fails to set forth the material terms of a partnership agreement. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have concluded that there was such a partnership agreement in this case. Weg v Kaufman, 2018 NY Slip Op 01567, Second Dept 3-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4401  (JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401, PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant demonstrated it did not have notice of the wet condition of the stairs. Plaintiff’s opposing affidavit contradicted her deposition testimony. Although the deposition was unsigned, defendant demonstrated the certified transcript was provided to plaintiff’s attorneys but it was never returned. Therefore the deposition served as plaintiff’s admission:

Defendant met its prima facie burden on the motion of establishing that it neither created the alleged wet condition nor had prior actual or constructive notice of it. By plaintiff’s own admission, the wet condition, which she never saw but assumes was there, could only have been created moments earlier, having not been present when she walked up the steps … .

Based upon plaintiff’s testimony that she was using both hands to carry her daughter down the steps when she fell, without any indication that she reached for a handrail, defendant established that the lack of a handrail did not proximately cause or contribute to the accident … .

Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition, wherein she claimed that she tried to reach for a handrail when she fell, raised only feigned issues of fact, as it directly contradicted, and appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequence of, her earlier testimony … .

Pursuant to CPLR 3116(a), plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript may be used as though fully signed, as defendant submitted proof that the certified transcript was provided to her attorneys for execution and not returned. Moreover, an unsigned but certified transcript may be used as an admission… , especially where, as here, there is no dispute as to the accuracy of the transcript … . Luna v CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01429, First Dept 3-6-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116 (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITION (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ADMISSION  (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS  (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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