You are here: / Civil Procedure

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing about whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to properly serve her:

“A process server's affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service” … . “Bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service” … . “However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing”… . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that branch of the motion of the defendant Delia Archibong (hereinafter the defendant) which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing. The defendant demonstrated her entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service through her affidavit, in which she denied that she knew anyone by the name of Tom Jonel, the person allegedly served at her house, that no one by that name or with that physical description lived in her house, and that she was the only person at home when the summons and complaint were allegedly served … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Archibong, 2018 NY Slip Op 00131, Second Dept 1-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was properly granted because the third-party action was commenced four years after the suit began and would unduly delay the main action. The Second Department also determined that Supreme Court properly ordered that defendants disclose information about post-accident repairs in this stairway slip and fall case. Defendants had not disclosed the identity of the party which exercised control over the stairway:

“CPLR 1010 provides a safety valve for cases in which the third-party claim will unduly delay the determination of the main action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party'”… . Where the record indicates that a third-party plaintiff knowingly and deliberately delayed in commencing the third-party action, the Supreme Court acts within its discretion to dismiss the third-party complaint… . Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the court correctly granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint because the defendants deliberately and intentionally delayed commencing the third-party action for more than four years.

“CPLR 3101(a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” … . ” Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control'” … . Contrary to the defendants' contentions, an issue exists as to the identity of the entity responsible for the structural maintenance and control of the stairway. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly directed the defendants to produce discovery concerning the post-accident repairs. Soto v CBS Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00185, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SLIP AND FALL, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1010  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3101  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/REPAIRS, POST-ACCIDENT  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant bus company (Hudson) was liable for plaintiff's fall. She stepped in a hole in the sidewalk as she got off the bus. The court noted a duty to provide a safe place to get off the bus and a contractual duty to notify Port Authority of needed repairs:

Issues of fact exist as to whether Hudson breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to disembark … . The record shows that 15 or 20 passengers exited the bus before plaintiff. As she alighted, she stepped into a hole on the sidewalk and fell. The bus driver corroborated this testimony, stating that the hole was on the sidewalk, “[w]ithin one step” of where plaintiff disembarked. The bus driver further admitted that the hole caused plaintiff to fall. Additionally, plaintiff testified that, upon seeing where she fell, the bus driver exclaimed, “[Y]ou fell in that hole, they're supposed to fix that hole.” Under the circumstances, where plaintiff stepped into a hole immediately upon alighting from the bus, the fact that a number of passengers safely descended before she did does not entitled Hudson to summary judgment … .

Issues of fact as to, among other things, whether Hudson breached its contractual duty to notify Port Authority of any needed repairs at the gate where the accident occurred compel denial of summary judgment on Port Authority's contractual indemnification claim. Bruno v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 00069, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND (FALL QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES  (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))

,

FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that the pro se notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked by Supreme Court and, although the notice did not explicitly describe a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the allegations were sufficient to put the municipality on notice that a malicious prosecution cause of action was contemplated. Only a mailcious prosecution claim was timely (the false arrest and false imprisonment claims were untimely):

Plaintiff's notice of claim does not specifically refer to the fact that he was charged with harassment in the second degree or to the dismissal of those charges. Nonetheless, plaintiff's assertions that he was falsely arrested without legitimate cause, that no crime took place and that City employees acted maliciously provided sufficient notice to defendants that plaintiff potentially had a claim for malicious prosecution. Although they protect different personal interests and are composed of different elements, claims for “false arrest and malicious prosecution are kindred actions insofar as they often aim to provide recompense for illegal law enforcement activities” … . Causes of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution are related closely enough that, in a trial of both, the court must instruct the jury not to make a duplicate award of damages… . Moreover, actual malice is an element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution, but not of a cause of action for false arrest … . Thus, receipt of a notice of claim alleging that its agents acted maliciously in executing a false arrest when no crime had occurred provided the City with the opportunity to investigate all circumstances related to plaintiff's arrest, including whether he had been arrested pursuant to a warrant — which would have insulated defendants from liability for false arrest … — and whether plaintiff's arrest had resulted in him being charged with, or prosecuted for, a crime. Hone v City of Oneonta, 2018 NY Slip Op 00055, Third Dept 1-4-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))

,

BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined an state prison inmate's action in Supreme Court against doctors (Lieb and Angell) alleging medical malpractice should not have been dismissed as duplicating an action against the same doctors in the Court of Claims. It was possible the state would not indemnify the doctors who were not employees of the state and plaintiff would be left without recourse. The Supreme Court action should have been stayed, not dismissed:

The legal theory in the Court of Claims action is nearly identical to the Supreme Court action, and it is not disputed that the two actions arise out of the same set of facts. Moreover, Correction Law § 24-a provides that licensed physicians providing contractual medical care at the request of DOCCS are covered by the defense and indemnity provisions in Public Officers Law § 17, as long as the injury was not the result of intentional wrongdoing. As such, it appears that the dismissal of the Supreme Court action would not prejudice plaintiff's right to receive full recovery from all defendants, as intentional wrongdoing is not part of the Supreme Court action and any damages attendant to Lieb's or Angell's malpractice or negligence would be borne by the state in the Court of Claims action.

However, while these defense and indemnity provisions appear to apply to Lieb and Angell, the record is not fully developed at this time to make such a definite determination. Indeed, despite currently defending Angell, the state has neither conceded nor admitted in any of its submissions or pleadings that it is statutorily bound by Correction Law § 24-a and Public Officers Law § 17 (3) (a) to indemnify Lieb and Angell. Rothschild v Braselmann, 2018 NY Slip Op 00054, Third Dept 1-4-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT))

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, limited the amount of discovery about the rear stairs of the bus where plaintiff fell and allowed representatives of defendants to be present when the bus was inspected and photographed by plaintiff:

… [D]iscovery [is limited] to documents concerning the rear stairs of the bus on which plaintiff fell, and the absence of warning signs and handrails in the rear of the bus, for a period of five years preceding the date of the accident, and records relating to any modifications or changes to the interior stairs, handrails, or warning signs in the rear of the bus from the day of the accident to the day of the inspection, and the production of the bus for inspection and photographing by plaintiff in the presence of defendants' representatives … .

Predecessor models of the bus on which plaintiff fell and buses with front-facing rear seating are not relevant to whether the bus on which plaintiff fell was defectively designed (CPLR 3101[a]… ). Similarly, while material concerning the rear stairs, handrails, and warning signs in the rear of the subject bus, i.e., the alleged dangerous conditions, is relevant, material concerning other sections of the bus or other defects is not relevant. The production of 15 years' worth of records is burdensome … . Curran v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 00038, First Dept 1-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DISCOVERY, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action on the complaint should have been stayed, not dismissed, based upon the agreement to arbitrate. The Third Department further held that the complaint, augmented by affidavits, stated causes of action and should not have been dismissed:

​

Supreme Court improperly dismissed the action against [defendant], rather than staying the action. Initially, there is no dispute on this record that plaintiff and [defendant], in the settlement agreement, consented to arbitrate any and all disputes regarding, among other things, the subject property. However, under established law, “[a]n agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action” and, thus, “may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . [Defendant’s] cross motion to dismiss based upon CPLR 3211 (a) (1), premised upon the agreement to arbitrate, does not entitle him to dismissal of this action… . Rather, where, as here, there is a valid arbitration clause in an agreement and the party sued … moves to compel arbitration, the court should stay the judicial action rather than dismiss it (see CPLR 7503 [a]…). By statute, the order granting [defendant’s] motion to compel arbitration “operate[s] to stay [the] pending or subsequent action” (CPLR 7503 [a]). …

We further find that Supreme Court improperly dismissed the complaint against the remaining defendants … . Importantly, on the remaining defendants’ pre-answer cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court was bound to “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . The court was also authorized to “consider affidavits submitted by plaintiff[] to remedy any defects in the complaint” … . Piller v Tribeca Dev. Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 09209, Third Dept 12-28-17

ARBITRATION (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 7503  (THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT))

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed causes of action for failure to name necessary parties, but rather should have ordered the parties joined:

​

Supreme Court erred, however, by determining that petitioners’ failure to name Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert as necessary parties required dismissal of the first three causes of action in the petition/complaint … . CPLR 1001 (b) provides that where a party or parties who should be joined have “not been made a party and [are] subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order [them] summoned” … . Because Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert are necessary parties and are subject to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction insofar as they were employees of the City of Kingston Police Department at the time of commencement of this proceeding, the court should have ordered them joined… . Accordingly, we find that this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to order Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert to be joined as necessary parties … . Matter of Farrell v City of Kingston, 2017 NY Slip Op 09214, Third Dept 12-28-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NECESSARY PARTIES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 1001 (NECESSARY PARTIES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s separate cause of action for punitive damages should have been dismissed. However, the demand for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause was proper. Plaintiff was a passenger in the car driven by defendant, who was drunk and lost control of the car:

​

The plaintiff erroneously denominated her request for punitive damages as a separate cause of action. “New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages”… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the separately pleaded sixth cause of action insofar as asserted against him.

However, the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause of the complaint was proper. Whereas compensatory damages are intended to assure that the victim receives “fair and just compensation commensurate with the injury sustained,” punitive damages are meant to “punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future” … . With regard to the availability of punitive damages in personal injury cases involving drunk drivers, while this Court has held that “[e]vidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages”… , this Court has also held that “driving while intoxicated may support an award for punitive damages where there is additional evidence that the defendant engaged in wanton and reckless’ conduct evincing heedlessness and an utter disregard for the safety of others”… . Indeed, punitive damages were properly imposed where the driver was excessively drunk …  or was a repeat offender… . Accordingly, a request for punitive damages can be stated in a case arising from drinking and driving. Furthermore, at this stage it would be premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim that the defendant acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages … Thus, to the extent the plaintiff sought punitive damages in her ad damnum clause, she stated a request for such damages, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that request for punitive damages insofar as asserted against him was properly denied … . Gershman v Ahmad, 2017 NY Slip Op 09117, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DAMAGES, DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DRUNK DRIVING, NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENCE, DRUNK DRIVING, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained an aspect of the rigid proof requirements for summary judgment. Here plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment in a foreclosure action. Defendant, in opposition, raised plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with a condition precedent in the note. Plaintiff submitted reply papers with proof the condition precedent had been met. The Second Department determined the reply could not be considered and therefore the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case in its papers:

​

As part of her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the defendant asserted, inter alia, that the plaintiff l… failed to show that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note…  “[A] party moving for summary judgment cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply, and generally, evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers should be disregarded by the court”… . Here, since the defendant raised the issue of compliance with paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note in her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the plaintiff’s submission for the first time of a copy of the requisite default notice with its reply to the defendant’s opposition to the summary judgment motion was not sufficient to establish its prima facie compliance … . Since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden on the motion, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Osias, 2017 NY Slip Op 09195, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE, N MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (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