You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed (modified) Supreme Court’s dismissal of products liability complaint against the distributor (At Last Sportswear) and seller (Walmart) of plaintiff’s clothing which caught fire. The court also determined the Enerco defendants (the manufacturer, designer, and distributor of the heater which ignited the clothes) were aggrieved by the order, based upon joint liability principles, and therefore could appeal it:

Although liability can be apportioned between any tortfeasors, whether they are codefendants or nonparties, if an alleged tortfeasor was a codefendant whom the court had dismissed from the case, the law of the case doctrine would preclude the remaining defendants from introducing at trial any evidence regarding the same type of defect or error by that alleged tortfeasor that was previously litigated … . Thus, the Enerco defendants were entitled to challenge motions by any codefendants seeking to be released from the action, they were aggrieved by any orders granting dismissal and they could, therefore, appeal any such orders. …

[At Last’s and Walmart’s] expert opined that the dress materials complied with and exceeded the requirements of the Federal Flammable Fabrics Act (15 USC § 1191 et seq. [hereinafter FFA]) and accompanying regulations (16 CFR part 1610) for general wearing apparel, as well as the industry standard, that the dress was reasonably safe and suitable for its intended use, that it was not defective in any manner and that this type of 100% cotton dress was a standard commodity.  …

… [T]he Enerco defendants submitted an affidavit from their own expert, who opined that the FFA standards are insufficient to determine whether a garment is safe because it addresses only some factors affecting flammability of the fabric but not the design of the garment itself … . He supported his opinion with literature in which industry professionals addressed the inadequacy of the FFA standards to protect consumers. These competing expert opinions present a triable issue of fact regarding whether a design defect exists … . …

The parties’ experts disagreed as to whether labels warning about the dress’s flammability and the need to be cautious around heat sources were appropriate for such general wearing apparel and existed in the United States market for this type of garment. Thus, factual issues remain regarding whether At Last Sportswear and the Wal-Mart defendants breached a duty to warn. Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01368, Third Dept 3-1-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT TORTFEASORS, (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (JOINT TORTFEASORS, (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))/JOINT TORTFEASORS (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff mother was entitled to the infant plaintiff’s foster care records in connection with her claim that SCO Family Services negligently certified the individual defendant as a foster parent, and failed to properly supervise the foster home:

Pursuant to Social Services Law § 372(1), SCO was required to maintain records while the children were in foster care. Those records are confidential, but are discoverable pursuant to article 31 of the CPLR (Social Services Law § 372[3]). The statutory confidentiality requirement is intended to protect the privacy of children in foster care and their natural parents … , not to prevent former foster children from obtaining access to their own records.

When a former foster child “seeks her own records, so she can further her own suit against the defendant custodian of those records, who would otherwise have unequal access to them”… , she is “presumptively entitled to her own records” and “only a powerfully compelling showing would justify the court in potentially restricting” her access to the records … .

In this case, the court properly undertook in camera review of the foster care records to ensure that no private information of nonparties would be disclosed. However, the court erred in determining that the identities of ACS caseworkers, mental health professionals and other professionals should be redacted. Plaintiffs sought access to those witnesses to determine whether they had any relevant knowledge, and SCO did not articulate any privacy interests of those professionals that would warrant redacting their names from the foster care records. K.B. v SCO Family of Serv., 2018 NY Slip Op 01400, Second Dept 3-1-18

FAMILY LAW (FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE,  ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/FOSTER CARE (DISCOVERY, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (DISCOVERY, FOSTER CARE RECORDS, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as time-barred should have been denied. The first foreclosure action was started in 2007. The defendant’s default did not automatically accelerate the debt because the language in the note and mortgage made acceleration optional. Although the 2007 complaint sought to accelerate the debt, the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing and therefore could not be relied upon as evidence the debt was accelerated. The Second Department also considered, and found valid, an argument raised below but not considered by Supreme Court, i.e., the current action was started within six months of the dismissal of the 2007 action and was therefore timely pursuant to CPLR 205 [a]. This rationale was deemed applicable even though the parties which commenced to two actions were not technically the same:

… [I]nasmuch as the acceleration provisions in the note and mortgage were made optional at the discretion of the holder and were not automatically triggered upon Rose Gordon’s default (see generally 1-4 Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 4.03[2017]), the allegation in the 2007 complaint that Rose Gordon defaulted on March 1, 2007, did not constitute evidence that the mortgage was accelerated on that date … . * * *

… [T]he prior plaintiff in the 2007 action did not have standing to commence that action because it was not the holder of the note and mortgage at the time that the 2007 action was commenced. Accordingly, service of the 2007 complaint was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt, since the prior plaintiff did not have the authority to accelerate the debt or to sue to foreclose at that time … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action”… . More specifically to the facts here, this Court has recently held that “a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action which meets all of the other requirements of the statute is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) where . . . it is the successor in interest as the current holder of the note”… .

Here, even assuming that there were no questions of fact as to whether the plaintiffs in the 2007 and 2013 actions were legally distinct entities, the plaintiff in this action is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a). As the assignee and subsequent holder of the note and mortgage, the plaintiff in the 2013 action had a statutory right, pursuant to CPLR 1018, to continue the 2007 action in the place of the prior plaintiff once the assignment occurred in 2009, even in the absence of a formal substitution … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Gordon, 2018 NY Slip Op 01349, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 205[a]  (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this personal injury action, based upon a release signed by the plaintiff, was properly denied. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit which, together with the complaint, raised the issue whether the release was procured by fraud:

“In resolving a motion for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the plaintiff’s allegations are to be treated as true, all inferences that reasonably flow therefrom are to be resolved in his or her favor, and where, as here, the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion, it is to be construed in the same favorable light” … . “A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a release “should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged” … .

Here, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants submitted an affidavit of their insurance carrier’s claims representative and a copy of the release signed by the plaintiff, which, by its terms, barred the instant action against them … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendants procured the release by fraud, whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances which indicate unfairness, and whether it was “not fairly and knowingly made” … . Sacchetti-Virga v Bonilla, 2018 NY Slip Op 01210, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (RELEASES, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (a)(5) (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, determined that the failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim in a federal action precluded a subsequent state action based upon the same counterclaim. In the federal action, investors sued Paramount pictures for securities fraud (federal question), common law fraud (state question) and unjust enrichment (state question). Paramount did not make any counterclaims, relying on a contractual waiver of liability (covenant not to sue). The federal district court found the waiver was binding and dismissed the investors’ actions. Then Paramount sued in state court, seeking $8 million in attorney’s fees. The opinions, dealing in depth with the underpinnings of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, as well as the applicability of federal law in this context, cannot be fairly summarized here:

Pursuant to federal principles of claim preclusion — the applicable rules of decision in this case (Semtek, 531 US at 507) — Paramount’s covenant not to sue claim is transactionally related to the investors’ claims in the federal case, amounting to the same “claim” for purposes of res judicata. As such, Paramount’s claim should have been asserted in the parties’ prior federal action. Because it was not, it is now barred. Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 2018 NY Slip Op 01150, CtApp 2-20-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/RES JUDICATA (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/CLAIM PRECLUSION COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM  (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined that plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action, despite a 30-month period between visits. Decision holding that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations precludes the application of the continuous treatment doctrine should not be followed:

Plaintiff saw defendant over the course of four years, underwent two surgeries at his hand, and saw no other doctor for her shoulder during this time. She returned to him after the thirty-month gap, discussed yet a third surgery with him, and accepted his referral to his partner only because defendant was no longer performing such surgeries. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding feeling discouraged with defendant’s treatment does not demonstrate as a matter of law that she never intended to return to his care; in fact, her testimony reveals that she considered defendant her only doctor during this time. Nor does the fact that defendant repeatedly told plaintiff she should return “as needed” foreclose a finding that the parties anticipated further treatment. Notably, Plaintiff’s injury was a chronic, long-term condition which both plaintiff and defendant understood to require continued care. Each of plaintiff’s visits to defendant over the course of seven years were “for the same or related illnesses or injuries, continuing after the alleged acts of malpractice” … . As to the 30-month period between visits, we have previously held that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations “is not per se dispositive of defendant’s claim that the statute has run” … . To the extent that lower courts have held to the contrary … , those cases should not be followed. Lohnas v Luzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01114, CtApp 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))

, ,

STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been denied. The evidence of a storm in progress was insufficient. The climatological analysis report submitted in the reply papers should not have been considered. There was no evidence when the sidewalk was last inspected prior to the fall:

… [T]he defendants submitted a copy of the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition, at which she testified that light rain began to fall about 15 minutes prior to her accident, and that no precipitation fell the day before the accident. The defendants also submitted a copy of the transcript of the deposition of the office manager [the occupant of the abutting property], who testified that she had no recollection of the weather conditions on the day of the accident. The office manager also did not know when the sidewalk was last inspected or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The defendants also submitted video footage and screen shots from a security camera, but this evidence was not probative because it did not clearly depict the surface where the plaintiff slipped. Finally, the defendants submitted a climatological analysis report which was not signed and notarized, and therefore not admissible … .

The defendants submitted a signed and notarized climatological analysis report with their reply papers. However, the Supreme Court should not have considered that report, as it was improperly submitted for the first time with the reply papers … . Brandimarte v Liat Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01042, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the in-court stipulation of settlement in a divorce action should not have been set aside. Neither party requested that the stipulation be set aside:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, setting aside the stipulation. We agree. Neither the decedent nor the defendant requested that the court set aside the stipulation … . Moreover, stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside. “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Here, the court did not conclude that any of these grounds were present. Estate of Michael Reid v Reid, 2018 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-14-18

FAMILY LAW (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (FAMILY LAW, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, FAMILY LAW, STIPULATIONS, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (STIPULATIONS, FAMILIY LAW, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s motion to discontinue the action which challenged the tax assessments of several lots. Supreme Court abused its discretion, however, when it, sua sponte, directed merger of several parcels into a single tax lot:

A motion for leave to discontinue an action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court … , and generally should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results … .

In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion, since the record supports the conclusion that the requested discontinuance would prejudice the respondents’ ability to defend against the proceeding … , and was improperly sought to avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination and to obtain an improper result.

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, sua sponte, directing that the six parcels be merged into a single tax lot. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” .. . Here, the court failed to abide by this principle. None of the parties sought merger of the parcels or similar relief, merger of all the parcels at issue into one tax lot is not supported by the record, and merger of all the parcels could be potentially prejudicial to the petitioner. Matter of Blauvelt Mini-Mall, Inc. v Town of Orangetown, 2018 NY Slip Op 01051, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE  (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))

MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, addressing two issues of first impression, determined: (1) a matter erroneously transferred to a court which did not have subject matter jurisdiction (Civil Court) can be retransferred to the correct court (Supreme Court); and (2) after the matter is retransferred the error cannot be remedied in Supreme Court by adopting the disposition of the Civil Court, which is void. The fact that the Civil Court judge was an Acting Supreme Court Justice did not afford subject matter jurisdiction to the Civil Court:

While Judge Marrazzo, by virtue of his designation as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, would have been authorized to preside over the trial of this matter had it been pending in the Supreme Court, the same cannot be said for the trial in the Civil Court where the Administrative Order had no administrative or substantive relevance.

Where subject matter jurisdiction is concerned, courts, including our own, may not cut corners. As a matter of both constitutional adherence and public policy, the Appellate Division must guard against courts acting outside of their subject matter jurisdiction, even if they do so unwittingly, in good faith, or in furtherance of judicial economy. Accordingly, we hold that the duties of an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court directed to matters pending in the Supreme Court operate only as to actions and proceedings pending in that particular court, and not for cases litigated elsewhere. …

… [S]ince the Civil Court was without jurisdiction to try the instant matter, rendering the trial and judgment void, its findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot as a matter of comity, res judicata, law of the case, or otherwise, be recognized by the Supreme Court upon its CPLR 325(b) removal of the action, and cannot provide a basis for the Supreme Court judgment presently on appeal. Caffrey v North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01043, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER (MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 325(b) (SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION  (MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (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