You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT. 

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking pre-action disclosure by respondent of the identities of persons who allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement should not have been granted. Respondent provides information about debt-distressed companies to a small audience at high prices. The First Department concluded that respondent operated a news service and the pre-action disclosure was precluded by the Civil Rights Law (Shield Law) which protects sources of news stories:

… [R]espondent established that its editorial staff is solely responsible for deciding what to report on and that it does not accept compensation for writing about specific topics or permit its subscribers to dictate the content of its reporting. Other courts have found the extent of a publication’s independence and editorial control to be important in determining whether to apply the Shield Law … . We concur.

Extending protection to respondent under the Shield Law is consistent with New York’s “long tradition, with roots dating back to the colonial era, of providing the utmost protection of freedom of the press” – protection that has been recognized as “the strongest in the nation” … . To condition coverage on a fact-intensive inquiry analyzing a publication’s number of subscribers, subscription fees, and the extent to which it allows further dissemination of information is unworkable and would create substantial prospective uncertainty, leading to a potential “chilling” effect. Matter of Murray Energy Corp. v Reorg Research, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05688, 1st Dept 7-13-17

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SHIELD LAW) (SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, SHIELD LAW, (SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT)/SHIELD LAW (CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT)/FREEDOM OF THE PRESS (CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE, SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT)

FAILURE TO INCLUDE A RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CORRECTED IF THERE IS NO PREJUDICE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined, because of a change in the Civil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR), the failure to include a return date in a notice of petition is no longer a jurisdictional defect and can be corrected if there is no prejudice:

CPLR 2001 was amended in 2007 to permit courts to disregard mistakes, omissions, defects or irregularities made at the commencement of a proceeding, which includes commencement by the filing of a petition… . Indeed, the purpose behind amending CPLR 2001 was “to allow courts to correct or disregard technical defects, occurring at the commencement of an action [or proceeding], that do not prejudice the opposing party” and “to fully foreclose dismissal of actions for technical, non-prejudicial defects”… . In view of the amendment of CPLR 2001, the rule articulated in our prior decisions — a notice of petition lacking a return date is jurisdictionally defective and, therefore, prohibits a court from exercising its authority under CPLR 2001 — is no longer tenable.

… [A] court may allow a petitioner to correct any mistake, omission, defect or irregularity in the filing process upon such terms as may be just … . CPLR 2001 also states that the court shall disregard any such mistake, omission, defect or irregularity if the right of a party is not substantially prejudiced. “[T]he primary purpose of a petition is to give notice to the respondent that the petitioner seeks a judgment against [a] respondent so that it may take such steps as may be advisable to defend the claim” … . A return date accomplishes this purpose by notifying the responding party when responsive papers must be served and when the petition will be heard … .

Here, the record reflects that respondents had sufficient notice of the petition. Indeed, respondents’ counsel conceded at oral argument before Supreme Court that they had “plenty of time to respond” and, on appeal, they do not contend that they suffered any prejudice. As such, the omission of a return date should have been disregarded as a mere technical infirmity … . Matter of Oneida Pub. Lib. Dist. v Town Bd. of The Town of Verona, 2017 NY Slip Op 05659, 3rd Dept 7-13-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO INCLUDE A RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CORRECTED IF THERE IS NO PREJUDICE 3RD DEPT)/RETURN DATE (NOTICE OF PETITION, FAILURE TO INCLUDE A RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CORRECTED IF THERE IS NO PREJUDICE 3RD DEPT)/NOTICE OF PETITION (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE A RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CORRECTED IF THERE IS NO PREJUDICE 3RD DEPT

,

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department that petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was properly denied. Although petitioner’s application to participate in the prison’s nursery program was improperly denied and she and her child were subsequently admitted to the program by Supreme Court, the facts did not justify the award of attorneys’ fees:

In March 2015, the petitioner moved pursuant to the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (CPLR art 86; hereinafter the EAJA) for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. In an order dated August 31, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s motion on the grounds that the respondents’ decision to deny her application for admission to the Nursery Program was “substantially justified” and that “special circumstances make an award unjust” (CPLR 8601[a]). The petitioner appeals.

Under the EAJA, “a court shall award to a prevailing party, other than the state, fees and other expenses incurred by such party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the court finds that the position of the state was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust” (CPLR 8601[a]). An award of attorneys’ fees under the EAJA is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “The determination of whether the State’s position was substantially justified is committed to the sound discretion of the court of first instance and is reviewable as an exercise of judicial discretion” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in concluding that the respondents’ position was substantially justified, notwithstanding the court’s underlying conclusion that the respondents’ determination to deny the petitioner’s application for admission to the Nursery Program should be annulled … . In particular, the evidence in support of the respondents’ position would satisfy a reasonable person that it was not “desirable for the welfare of [the] child” to remain with the petitioner for purposes of the EAJA … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, although the court found that the respondents failed to consider certain factors, including the petitioner’s current achievements and the supervised nature of the Nursery Program, there was no evidence in the record that the respondents “willfully ignored” those factors. Moreover, this is not a case where the respondents failed to conduct any assessment as to whether the subject child’s welfare would best be served by remaining with the petitioner … . Matter of Losurdo v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2017 NY Slip Op 05603, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/CORRECTIONS LAW (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)

,

DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, overruling Fourth Department precedent, determined causes of action stemming from a 2009 home burglary should not have been dismissed as barred by the two year statute of limitation. The term “date of loss” in the policy was interpreted to mean the date of the claim denial, not the date of the burglary:

Plaintiff commenced this action more than two years after the 2009 theft. Interpreting the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the theft occurred, defendant contends that the action is time-barred under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff, on the other hand, interprets the phrase “date of loss” as the date on which the claim was denied and, as a result, contends that the action was timely commenced. We agree with plaintiff. Despite cases holding that “date of loss” means the date of the underlying catastrophe, including cases from this Department (see Baluk v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 1151; Klawiter v CGU/OneBeacon Ins. Group, 27 AD3d 1155), the Court of Appeals has found a distinction between the generic phrase “date of loss,” and the term of art “inception of loss” (see Medical Facilities v Pryke, 95 AD2d 692, 693, affd 62 NY2d 716; Proc v Home Ins. Co., 17 NY2d 239, 243-244, rearg denied 18 NY2d 751; Steen v Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 89 NY 315, 322-325). As the Second Circuit noted in Fabozzi v Lexington Ins. Co. (601 F3d 88, 91), those cases have not been overruled or disavowed in any way.

Indeed, as the 1st Department recognized in Medical Facilities, “nothing in [Proc] suggests an intention to alter [the] general rule” … , which is “that an action for breach of contract commences running at the time the breach takes place” … . Thus, only the very specific “inception of loss” or other similarly “distinct language” permits using the catastrophe date as the limitations date … . Here, the policy did not contain the specific “inception of loss” or other similarly distinct language, and we thus disavow our decisions in Baluk and Klawiter to the extent that they hold otherwise.

Inasmuch as ” [a]mbiguities in an insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer’ ” … , we conclude that the two-year limitations period contained in the policy did not begin to run until “the loss [became] due and payable” … . Lobello v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05543, 4th Dept 7-7-17

INSURANCE LAW (DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (INSURANCE LAW, DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION NOT BARRED BY TWO YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 4TH DEPT)

,

DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and its contractors had the right to enter respondent’s property to test for gasoline contamination without signing an access agreement with the property owner. The property owner had refused entry to DEC contractors because its proposed access agreement was rejected by the DEC. The Fourth Department further determined a declaratory judgment action was the appropriate vehicle for the relief requested by the DEC and converted the action accordingly:

We … agree with the DEC that the Oil Spill Act authorizes it and its contractors or agents to enter suspected spill sites. Navigation Law § 178 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he department is hereby authorized to enter and inspect any property or premises for the purpose of inspecting facilities and investigating either actual or suspected sources of discharges or violation of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to this article.  * * *

Where an unregulated discharge takes place, … the “person” responsible “shall immediately undertake to contain such discharge” … . As this does not always occur, “the [DEC] may undertake the removal of such discharge and may retain agents and contractors who shall operate under the direction of [the DEC] for such purposes” … , and in reading the Act’s sections together to best effectuate the Legislature’s intended objectives … , we conclude that the DEC’s contractors who “operate under the direction of [the DEC]” to investigate and remediate suspected and actual discharges of petroleum are authorized by statute, like the DEC, to enter the subject property for such purposes without acceding to landowner access agreements, but remaining subject only to restrictions imposed by law. Matter of State of New York (Essex Prop. Mgt., LLC), 2017 NY Slip Op 05525, 4th Dept 7-7-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM  WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/NAVIGATION LAW (GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/OIL SPILL LAW  (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)/GASOLINE CONTAMINATION (NAVIGATION LAW, GASOLINE CONTAMINATION, DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT)

,

ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined that the town’s attempt obtain an injunction requiring respondents to tear down structures which violated the zoning code was invalid. The action was brought by an order to show cause, but no summons or complaint had been filed. Therefore the courts did not have jurisdiction over the matter:

“[T]he valid commencement of an action is a condition precedent to [Supreme Court’s] acquiring the jurisdiction even to entertain an application for a[n] . . . injunction”… . Here, however, there is no action supporting the application for an injunction. Indeed, the order to show cause and supporting papers themselves constitute the only request for an injunction. While ” courts are empowered and indeed directed to convert a civil judicial proceeding not brought in the proper form into one which would be in proper form, rather than to grant a dismissal’ “… , more than improper form is involved here … . Converting the order to show cause and supporting papers into a summons and complaint in these circumstances would effectively permit the Town to seek an injunction by motion, a result that is at odds with the well-established principle that “[t]he pendency of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of a[n] . . . injunction” … . We thus conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Town’s request … . Without an underlying action the order putatively on appeal does not constitute an appealable paper… . The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Matter of Town of Cicero v Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05524, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/INJUNCTIONS (ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)/JURISDICTION (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, ACTION SEEKING INJUNCTION WAS NOT STARTED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE 4TH DEPT)

, , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing this asbestos-related products liability action should not have been granted. Defendants merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and did not submit prima facie proof demonstrating their products were not the source of asbestos exposure. Therefore summary judgment should have been denied without any reference to the opposing papers:

In February 2015, plaintiff Eileen A. O’Connor was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Alleging that her illness stemmed from exposure to equipment containing asbestos while working at the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research (hereinafter WCDLR) from approximately 1975 to 1979, O’Connor, along with her husband, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action in 2015 against, among others, defendants Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Thomas Scientific, Inc. and VWR International, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) … . * * *

… [T]he proof submitted by defendants, respectively, failed to establish that they did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR during the time that O’Connor was employed or that O’Connor was not exposed to any such products … . * * *

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could not have caused O’Connor’s asbestos-related illness… . Fisher Scientific’s lack of documentation from the 1970s does not establish that it did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR. Otherwise, defendants, respectively, “merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff[s’] proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why [plaintiffs’] claims fail” … . O’Connor v Aerco Intl., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05487, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

,

COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision and the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) were not necessary parties to this review of a disciplinary proceeding and other grievances:

“CPLR 1001 (a) states that an individual or entity is a necessary party to litigation ‘if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action’ or if the entity [or individual] ‘might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action [or proceeding]'” … . Here, respondent maintains that the Commissioner and CORC are necessary parties to this action because complete relief cannot be accorded in their absence. Although respondent correctly notes that the Commissioner is the individual who renders the final determination in tier III disciplinary proceedings … and CORC is the entity having the final decision on whether to grant or deny an inmate grievance … , the failure to name either the Commissioner or CORC as a party has never before inequitably affected them or prevented this Court from according complete relief in similar proceedings… . Moreover, in light of the fact that respondent, the Commissioner and CORC are integrally related inasmuch as they each fall under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, we find that the Commissioner and CORC are at no risk of prejudice and would not be “inequitably affected by a judgment” if they were not joined in this proceeding … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Commissioner and CORC are not necessary parties, and the failure to name them in proceedings such as this can be ignored. Matter of Green v Uhler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05491, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/NECESSARY PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)

(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the small claims action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action between the same parties was a property dispute concerning a right-of-way. Although the small claims matter arose from the property dispute, pursuant to the permissive counterclaim rule, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The Third Department also determined the pretrial motion to dismiss the small claims matter should not have been granted, noting such a motion should rarely be entertained within the simplified small claims procedure:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Nevertheless, the permissive counterclaim rule operates to “save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action” so long as the second action is not based on “a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

A review of the record establishes that, although some of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that predate the first action and are connected to defendants’ attempts in the first action to assert their rights as property owners, the monetary relief that plaintiff now seeks is different than the relief he obtained in the first action and would in no way impair the rights established by the first action. Thus, we find that County Court’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising his negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in this action was clearly erroneous … . Accordingly, we conclude that “substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law” as to these claims … .

We also find that County Court erred in addressing the merits of defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss as it related to the malicious prosecution claim inasmuch as informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see UCCA 1804), and pretrial motions to dismiss should rarely be entertained … . In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to present his evidence at a hearing, we find that substantial justice will best be served by remittal to City Court for a prompt trial … . Rackowski v Araya, 2017 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/RES JUDICATA (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE (RES JUDICATA, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/SMALL CLAIMS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/DISMISS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO (SMALL CLAIMS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/COUNTERCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s responses to an inconsistent verdict were inadequate and ordered a new trial , granting defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The jury, in this lead-paint poisoning case, found that the defendant property owner was negligent but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. However the jury went on to award plaintiff $250,000 in damages. The judge sent the jury back, instructing them that they could not award damages unless they found the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. The judge did not inform the jury they could adhere to their original finding on proximate cause. The jury returned a second verdict, this time finding defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries:

Here, the jury’s first verdict was internally inconsistent when it awarded damages to the plaintiff despite finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly directed the jury to reconsider the verdict. Notwithstanding, the record supports the conclusion that the second round of deliberations resulted in an unreliable verdict … . Specifically, the court failed to provide clear instructions to the jury regarding how to proceed with respect to the interrogatories concerning damages if it again found that the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. This failure may have induced the jury to decide, out of confusion or frustration, to simply forgo the issue altogether by finding that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, the court’s response to the jury note to simply follow the instructions on the new verdict sheet was inadequate. ” Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors'” … . Under these circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to set aside the second jury verdict and directed a new trial … . Cleveland v Djeu, 2017 NY Slip Op 05417, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/LEAD PAINT (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INCONSISTENT VERDICT, TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND 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