You are here: / 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).

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))

, , ,

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))

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