You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant college’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-student’s breach of contract complaint as time-barred was properly granted. Plaintiff-student had received a failing grade and was ultimately dismissed from the program. The plaintiff’s mechanism for redress was an Article 78 proceeding, which has a four-month statute of limitations. The fact that the plaintiff attempted to bring a timely breach of contract action was to no avail:

​

 “Although decisions made by educational institutions as to academic issues are not completely beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, review is restricted to special proceedings under CPLR article 78, and only to determine whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or in bad faith” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s complaint challenged her dismissal from Teachers College following her receipt of a failing grade in the elective course. This is an academic determination for which the plaintiff should have sought review in the context of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78… . Since the plaintiff’s claims would have been barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such a proceeding … , the Supreme Court properly granted Teachers College’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was time-barred … . Hernandez v Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ., 2017 NY Slip Op 06433, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))/COLLEGES (AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGES, AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))/ARTICLE 78  (AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (ARTICLE 78, AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGES, AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT))

,

MANY STATEMENTS MADE BY A FORMER NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING A FORMER CEO OF AIG DEEMED ACTIONABLE IN THIS DEFAMATION SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined certain statements made by defendant Eliot Spitzer (former New York Attorney General) concerning Hank Greenberg (former CEO of AIG) supported defamation causes of action. The opinion went through the long list of statements alleged to be defamatory in the complaint in the context of Spitzer’s motions to dismiss. Many, but not all, of the statements were found actionable and the complaint was deemed to have adequately alleged the actionable statements were made with malice:

This appeal presents an opportunity to discuss in some detail the proper application of CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) in the context of an action sounding in defamation. * * *

“Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts’ are capable of being proven false, it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action'”… .Thus, “[a]n expression of pure opinion is not actionable, . . . no matter how vituperative or unreasonable it may be” … .

“A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or it may be an opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation so long as it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts” … . Conversely, “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, is a mixed opinion and is actionable” … .

“Whether a particular statement constitutes an opinion or an objective fact is a question of law” … . “In distinguishing between facts and opinion, the factors the court must consider are (1) whether the specific language has a precise meaning that is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether the context in which the statement appears signals to readers [or listeners] that the statement is likely to be opinion, not fact” … . “The essential task is to decide whether the words complained of, considered in the context of the entire communication and of the circumstances in which they were spoken or written, may be reasonably understood as implying the assertion of undisclosed facts justifying the opinion” … . Greenberg v Spitzer, 2017 NY Slip Op 06432, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact was raised whether plaintiff bank was aware defendants observed Saturday as a holy day, thereby invalidating nail and mail service on Saturday in this foreclosure action:

​

General Business Law § 13 provides: “Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The defendants contend that the plaintiff’s counsel was aware that they are observant, Orthodox Jewish persons who adhere to the Sabbath, and thus, the Saturday affixation of process to the door of their residence was invalid. This appears to be an issue of first impression for this Court. We agree with the other courts that have addressed the issue, which have consistently held, for more than a century, that service in violation of General Business Law § 13, or its predecessor statute, is void, and personal jurisdiction is not obtained over the party served … . Moreover, we hold that the statute applies not only to personal service upon a defendant, but also to the affixation portion of “nail and mail” service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) on the door of a defendant’s residence, as occurred here … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lilker, 2017 NY Slip Op 06434, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/NAIL AND MAIL (GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed because issue was never joined. Even though the defense was first raised in the reply papers, it could be considered on appeal because the issue is apparent on the face of the record and the lower court would have been required to address it:

… [T]he Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 unless the plaintiff filed a note of issue or otherwise moved for entry of a judgment within 90 days. The action was thereafter administratively dismissed … .

… [T]he plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar. … [T]he Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to present a reasonable excuse for not complying with the conditional 90-day order to dismiss and that the delay since the time that the referee was appointed was substantial. …

… [D]ismissal of the action pursuant to the … conditional order was improper, as issue was never joined inasmuch as none of the defendants served an answer to the complaint… .. Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the Supreme Court was without power to dismiss the action pursuant to that statute … .

Although the plaintiff did not raise, until its reply papers, the argument that this action was improperly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined, we may consider it on appeal since the reply papers did not present new facts but only raised an issue of law which appeared on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court at the proper juncture … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ricketts, 2017 NY Slip Op 06475, Second Dept 9-13-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the Working Families Party’s petition to add NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio as a mayoral candidate in a primary election was properly denied for failure to name the party’s Executive Board as a necessary party:

Necessary parties are those “who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action” (CPLR 1001[a]). Appellants rely on Matter of O’Brien v Seneca County Bd. of Elections (22 AD3d 1036, 1036 [4th Dept 2005]) and Matter of Seaman v Bird (176 AD2d 1061, 1062 [3d Dept 1991]), to argue that, because complete relief could be obtained from the Board of Elections, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party is not a necessary party. Their reliance is misplaced. Here, where petitioners assert that the Executive Board’s certificate of authorization was invalid under Election Law § 6-120, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party was a necessary party because a judgment on this issue could inequitably affect its interests. To the extent that there are other decisions to the contrary, they should not be followed. Matter of Morgan v de Blasio, 2017 NY Slip Op 06399, CtApp 8-31-17

ELECTION LAW (PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ELECTION LAW, PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS A NECESSARY PARTY (CT APP))

, ,

DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment discharging a mortgage after the statute of limitations on the foreclosure action had expired should have been granted. The court explained that the six year statute started to run when the debt was accelerated by the foreclosure action that was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff demonstrated that the dismissed foreclosure action was commenced by a party with standing:

… [W]ith respect to an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), a person having an estate or an interest in real property subject to a mortgage can seek to cancel and discharge that encumbrance where the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitations for the commencement of an action to foreclose the mortgage had expired, provided that the mortgagee or its successor was not in possession of the subject real property at the time the action to cancel and discharged the mortgage was commenced … . An action to foreclose a mortgage has a six-year statute of limitations… . “The law is well settled that, even if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt”… .

Here, the plaintiff submitted a copy of the summons and complaint filed in the mortgage foreclosure action commenced by the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest and the order dismissing that action pursuant to CPLR 3216 which demonstrated that the mortgage was accelerated in 2008 more than six years before the commencement of this action and that there was no longer a pending mortgage foreclosure action … . In addition, the summons and the complaint, along with the subject mortgage documents, submitted by the plaintiff on its motion, demonstrated that the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest had standing to commence the mortgage foreclosure action ….

Further, the plaintiff demonstrated that the applicable statute of limitations had expired even if the limitations period was calculated … the date by which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver for the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest  …. . 53 PL Realty, LLC v US Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 06345, Second Dept 8-30-17

 

FORECLOSURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the successful motion to dismiss a civil suit did not mandate the award of attorney’s fees under the CPLR:

… “[U]nder the American Rule as applied to statutory entitlement to attorneys’ fees, the [United States] Supreme Court has held that we follow a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority”… . * * *

The relevant phrase of CPLR 3220 stating that the claimant “shall pay the expenses necessarily incurred by the party against whom the claim is asserted, for trying the issue of damages from the time of the offer” demonstrates the Legislature’s intent that, where the claimant has not accepted the offer, the commencement of a trial is a condition precedent to imposing liability upon the claimant for the opposing party’s expenses. This phrase also defines the recoverable expenses as those “necessarily” expended “for trying the issue of damages.” CPLR 3220 further provides that those expenses should be determined by the judge “before whom the case is tried.” Accordingly, the plain language of CPLR 3220 does not explicitly authorize an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a party … who merely prevailed in seeking dismissal of a cause of action alleging breach of contract. Even if CPLR 3220 could arguably support an implied right to the attorney’s fees and costs … , the public policy of the American Rule militates against adoption of that interpretation … . Saul v Cahan, 2017 NY Slip Op 06391, Second Dept 8-30-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined further jurisdictional discovery was required before certain causes of action could be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If the relationship with signatories of a contract with a forum selection clause is close enough, non-signatories will be covered by the clause. Discovery was necessary to determine how close the relationship was. The opinion is too detailed and complex to fully summarize here. The crux of the action is the alleged failure of the corporations to pay interest due on notes held by shareholders:

“Under New York law, a signatory to a contract may invoke a forum selection clause against a non-signatory if the non-signatory is closely related’ to one of the signatories such that enforcement of the forum selection clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between the signatory and the party sought to be bound'” … . If the nonsignatory party has an ownership interest or a direct or indirect controlling interest in the signing party … , or, the entities or individuals consulted with each other regarding decisions and were intimately involved in the decision-making process… , then, a finding of personal jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause may be proper, as it achieves the “rationale behind binding closely related entities to the forum selection clause [which] is to promote stable and dependable trade relations.'” … .

Here, plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, by virtue of their senior management positions, power and decision-making authority, and B & B, as the parent company of BTEL and as a principal shareholder of 39.6% of BTEL’s stock, had actual knowledge at the time of the offering that BTEL was insolvent and would be incapable of meeting its obligations under the notes; that they authorized, participated in, and promoted the offering; and that they caused the offering memoranda to be distributed into the marketplace. This is enough, at this stage, to permit jurisdictional discovery as to the nature of B & B’s and the individual defendants’ actual knowledge and role in the offering of the notes, and their responsibilities connected thereto, because this information, which may result in a determination that the nonsignatories are indeed “closely related” to the signing parties, is a fact that cannot be presently known to plaintiffs, but rather, is within the exclusive control of defendants …. . Universal Inv. Advisory SA v Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06344, First Dept 8-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION,  FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (CONTRACT LAW, (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dentist who provided an affidavit for plaintiff was an expert, the expert raised a question of fact whether defendant departed from the accepted standard of care, and a question of fact was raised about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications were not questioned in defendant’s reply papers. Therefore, the court should not have raised the issue on its own and used the issue to support granting  summary judgment to the defendant. With regard to informed consent, the court wrote:

“A cause of action predicated on a lack of informed consent is meant to redress a failure of the person providing the professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient such alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved as a reasonable medical . . . practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation”… .. To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury … .

Here, the defendant failed to submit proof sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he had informed the plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and, in any event, that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed … . Dyckes v Stabile, 2017 NY Slip Op 06252, Second Dept 8-23-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT  (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))

CERTIFICATE OF READINESS WHICH INDICATED FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS NECESSARY RENDERED THE FILING OF THE NOTE OF ISSUE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the filing of note of issue accompanied by a certificate of readiness which indicated more discovery was required was a nullity:

Pursuant to Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.21, a note of issue must be accompanied by a certificate of readiness, which must state that there are no outstanding requests for discovery and the case is ready for trial … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ certificate of readiness stated, among other things, that discovery proceedings had not been completed, that there were outstanding requests for discovery, and that the case was not ready for trial. Since the certificate of readiness failed to materially comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21, the filing of the note of issue was a nullity … . Rizzo v Balish & Friedman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06307, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CERTIFICATE OF READINESS WHICH INDICATED FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS NECESSARY RENDERED THE FILING OF THE NOTE OF ISSUE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF READINESS (CERTIFICATE OF READINESS WHICH INDICATED FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS NECESSARY RENDERED THE FILING OF THE NOTE OF ISSUE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTE OF ISSUE  (CERTIFICATE OF READINESS WHICH INDICATED FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS NECESSARY RENDERED THE FILING OF THE NOTE OF ISSUE A NULLITY (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