You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined New York courts had jurisdiction over a New Jersey radiologist (Daulto) in this failure-to-diagnose-cancer medical malpractice action:

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dauito, a radiologist, negligently read her sonogram, leading to a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of her breast cancer. Dr. Dauito avers that, at all relevant times, he was a New Jersey resident and worked only at an office in New Jersey. However, he acknowledges that he was licensed to practice medicine in New York and that he contracted with defendant Madison Avenue Radiology, P.C., a New York corporation, to provide radiology services to some of its New York patients. Plaintiff’s sonogram was performed in New York, Dr. Dauito relayed his diagnostic findings to Madison Avenue Radiology in New York, and Madison Avenue Radiology issued a report based on his findings that was allegedly relied upon by plaintiff and her doctors. Under these circumstances, New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over Dr. Dauito pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), notwithstanding his lack of physical presence in New York, because he transacted business with Madison Avenue Radiology and provided radiology services to patients in New York, including plaintiff, projecting himself into the State by electronically or telephonically transmitting his diagnostic findings … .

New York courts may also exercise jurisdiction over Dr. Dauito pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3), because, as alleged, Dr. Dauito’s negligent misdiagnosis resulted in a delay in plaintiff’s treatment, thereby causing injury to plaintiff in New York, and Dr. Dauito should reasonably expect his out-of-state negligent misdiagnosis in plaintiff’s case to have consequences in New York … . Allen v Institute for Family Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 01998, First Dept 3-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT)))/CPLR 302(a) (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, LONG ARM JURISDICTION, NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT))

,

MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff mortgage company should have been allowed to amend its complaint to seek equitable subrogation in this foreclosure action. Defendants husband (Feller) and wife had a mortgage on the subject property. Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest subsequently provided a mortgage loan to defendant husband alone and the proceeds were used to pay off the first mortgage. Plaintiff’s predecessor then procured a judgment in foreclosure, but only with respect to defendant husband’s interest in the property. Plaintiff  sought to amend its complaint alleging it was entitled to the wife’s interest in the property (equitable subrogation). The court further found that defendant wife did not ratify the execution of the husband’s mortgage and explained the criteria for ratification:

As we recently clarified, the party seeking leave to amend a pleading “need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment” … . Rather, the appropriate standard to be applied on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that, “‘in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . …

Ratification … is the express or implied “adoption of the acts of another by one for whom the other assumes to be acting, but without authority” … . …[P]laintiff has not alleged any unauthorized act on the part of Feller. It is undisputed that Feller and defendant held the property at issue as tenants by the entirety, and “there is nothing in New York law that prevents one of the co-owners from mortgaging or making an effective conveyance of his or her own interest in the tenancy. To the contrary, each tenant may sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber his or her rights in the property, subject to the continuing rights of the other” … .

Here, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Countrywide, provided funds through a second mortgage on the subject property to pay off a first mortgage securing a loan that both defendant and Feller were obligated to pay. Defendant would therefore be unjustly enriched if the doctrine of equitable subrogation were not applied, as denial of this equitable remedy “would provide a windfall to [defendant] by allowing [her] to have [her] original mortgage debt extinguished while at the same time maintain a right to the subject property that is superior to the mortgagee that furnished the funds that extinguished the first mortgage” … . Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Feller, 2018 NY Slip Op 01973, Third Dept 3-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/RATIFICATION (FORECLOSURE, MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (FORECLOSURE,  MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, MORTGAGE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SEEK EQUITABLE SUBROGATION TO THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CRITERIA FOR AMENDING A COMPLAINT, RATIFICATION OF THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE, AND EQUITABLE SUBROGATION EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Nimkoff) was entitled to a hearing on whether plaintiff bank (Hudson City Savings Bank) made a good faith effort to resolve the foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f):

… Nimkoff submitted … his own affidavit in which he averred that the plaintiff refused to negotiate with him for the stated reason that another entity, Hudson City Savings Bank (hereinafter Hudson City), was the holder of the mortgage and did not allow loan modifications. In opposition, the plaintiff contended that its counsel properly appeared at the two foreclosure settlement conferences and advised the court that Hudson City does not participate in the home affordable modification program. The plaintiff submitted … the master mortgage loan purchase and servicing agreement (hereinafter PSA) between the plaintiff and Hudson City to establish that the plaintiff was the servicer of the subject mortgage and Hudson City was the purchaser. However, the PSA also authorized the plaintiff to modify the terms of the subject mortgage loan with Hudson City’s consent. In any event, the statute requires the parties to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. There is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff attempted to gain Hudson City’s consent to offer a loan modification or offered Nimkoff another nonretention solution, such as a deed in lieu of foreclosure. In fact, there is no evidence in the record that any effort was made to reach a resolution at the two foreclosure settlement conferences. Citimortgage, Inc. v Nimkoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 01900, Second Dept 3-21-18

FORECLOSURE (SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT))/SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (FORECLOSURE, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3408 (f) (FORECLOSURE, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Jackson’s) motion to toll the accrual of interest during the four years between the filing of the first foreclosure action, which was erroneously dismissed, and the second foreclosure action should have been granted. The court further found that defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert the lack of standing defense should have been granted:

Although the initial October 2010 RJI may have been rejected erroneously, the plaintiff fails to explain the ensuing four-year delay between the initial October 2010 filing and the subsequent filing on November 6, 2014. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, since Jackson was prejudiced by this unexplained delay, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the loan should have been tolled from December 22, 2010 (that is, 60 days after the alleged initial October 2010 RJI was filed, the time period during which a settlement conference would be scheduled), through the date that the plaintiff filed the subsequent RJI on November 6, 2014 … . …

“Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given,’ provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” … . Here, Jackson sought to amend his answer after he was served with the November 2014 RJI to which the plaintiff had attached a copy of the subject note, executed by him in favor of Countrywide Bank, FSB, and which had not been endorsed to the plaintiff. Since Jackson’s proposed amendment to include the defense of lack of standing did not result in any prejudice to the plaintiff and was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of Jackson’s motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert the defense of lack of standing … . BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson, 2018 NY Slip Op 01896, Second Dept 3-21-18

FORECLOSURE (ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST (FORECLOSURE,  ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))

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))

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