You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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)

,

CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined conclusory allegations that the landlord (Miranda) was an owner of the business (Molly’s Pub)) in which plaintiff’s decedent was injured were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in this wrongful death action:

We agree with Miranda … that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The conclusory allegations in the complaint alleging liability on the same grounds as those alleged against the [pub] defendants based upon the alleged ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub are insufficient to state a cause of action against him. … Miranda submitted the lease, which provides that he shall not be liable for injury to persons or for any defects in the building. He also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he has no ownership interest in Molly’s Pub, that did he not exercise any control over the operation of Molly’s Pub … , that he had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition on the premises and that he was “merely an out-of-possession landlord.” …

‘[W]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support . . . Indeed, a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations” … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support his allegation that Miranda had an ownership or partnership interest in the operation of Molly’s Pub. Sager v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05340, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

, ,

COUNTY LAW 308 DOES NOT PROHIBIT DISCOVERY OF 911 CALL RECORDS IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT, INCLUDING THE RECORDS OF 911 CALLS MADE BY NONPARTIES.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, determined Supreme Court properly ordered the county to provide to plaintiff records of 911 calls made during a severe winter storm. Plaintiff’s decedent was stranded in his car during the storm and called 911 for help. Help did not arrive until nearly 24 hours later, after plaintiff’s decedent died. In addition to the records of plaintiff’s decedent’s 911 call (which the county provided), plaintiff sought records of 911 calls made by others during the storm. The county argued the list of parties allowed access to 911 call records in County Law § 308 (4) was exclusive, and did not include parties in civil lawsuits. The Fourth Department determined the county’s argument was not supported by the legislative history of the statute:

Here, the context and legislative history of section 308 (4) paint a different picture than defendants’ de-contextualized analysis suggests. Section 308 was enacted as part of article 6 of the County Law, which contains 59 discrete provisions related almost exclusively to the financing of a uniform, statewide telephonic emergency response system. * * *

… County Law § 300 reveals unmistakably that the Legislature was motivated to adopt County Law article 6 in order to update the emergency response system across the State and to mitigate the financial burden of that endeavor for local governments. It is hardly surprising, then, that section 308 (4) lacks the hallmark language of other statutory provisions which specifically cut off a civil litigant’s access to certain classes of evidentiary materials for reasons of public policy… .

The relevant legislative history lends further support to our conclusion that the Legislature did not enact section 308 (4) in order to exempt 911 records from the scope of discovery authorized by CPLR article 31. Specifically, the sponsoring memorandum for what would become County Law article 6 referenced only the budgetary implications of enhanced 911 services for local government … , and a later-introduced bill sought to repeal section 308 (4) on the ground that it unjustifiably shielded 911 records from requests under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) … . Tellingly, the sponsor … did not identify any need to repeal section 308 (4) in order to make 911 records discoverable under article 31, and for good reason — section 308 (4) had never exempted 911 records from such disclosure in the first place. Abate v County of Erie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05351, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAD BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion seeking discovery to determine damages after defendants’ answer had been struck should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendants had breached “noncompete” provisions of an employment agreement. Defendant (Morrow) did not show up for a deposition and defendants did not provide discovery. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer and enter judgment for plaintiff, but denied plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment discovery:

We agree with plaintiff that it is entitled to discovery in order to establish its damages … . A “defendant’s obligation to afford [a] plaintiff the opportunity to pursue discovery [is not] terminated when the answer [is] stricken,” inasmuch as a plaintiff should not be “handicapped in the proof of its damages by [a] defendant’s prior defiance of orders, notices, or subpoenas calling for his production of records or the taking of a deposition” … . Thus, a “plaintiff, if it chooses to do so, may press its right to discovery in advance of the inquest, whether for direct use as evidence in proving its damages or for the procurement of information that may lead to such evidence” … . Here, plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Morrow’s compliance with the discovery demands insofar as those demands are “material and necessary” to establish plaintiff’s damages (CPLR 3101 [a]). We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from and grant that part of the motion seeking an order to compel discovery from Morrow with respect to damages only. ICM Controls Corp. v Morrow, 2017 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

LAWSUIT INVOLVED WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS LOCATED IN RUSSIA, DISMISSAL BASED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS PROPER.

The First Department determine the lawsuit was properly dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The lawsuit involved people and documents located in Russia. The fact that defendants wired money from New York was not a sufficient contact:

“The application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court … . Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, “the availability of another suitable forum” is not “a prerequisite for applying the conveniens doctrine” … .

Considering all the relevant factors, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. What is left of the instant New York state complaint …is the claim that plaintiff (a Cypriot corporation with an office in Canada) should have received dividends from Yugraneft (a Russian company that owns an oil field in Siberia). The key events underlying the claim took place in Russia, where the bulk of the witnesses and documents are located. That the individual defendants may have wired funds from New York does not require a contrary result … .  “[O]ur courts should not be under any compulsion to add to their heavy burdens by accepting jurisdiction of a cause of action having no substantial nexus with New York” … . Norex Petroleum Ltd. v Blavatnik, 2017 NY Slip Op 05310, 1st Dept 6-29-17

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED THE REVOCATION OF THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREBY STOPPING THE RUNNING OF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department determined the lender had raised a question of fact whether it had revoked its election to accelerate the debt by withdrawing a prior foreclosure action. The six-year statute of limitations began to run when the debt was accelerated by the first foreclosure action. If the withdrawal of that action revoked the debt acceleration, the statute would have stopped running at that point rendering the instant action timely:

[E]ven 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'” … . A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action … .

… [T]he defendant submitted proof that, on August 16, 2011, [the lender] moved for, and on September 22, 2011, was granted, an order that discontinued the foreclosure action, canceled the notice of pendency, and vacated the judgment of foreclosure and sale it had been granted. The defendant thereby raised a triable issue of fact … as to whether [the lender’s] motion “constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” …  Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, this case is distinguishable from the cases in which, because “[t]he prior foreclosure action was never withdrawn by the lender, but rather, dismissed . . . by the court, [i]t cannot be said that [the] dismissal by the court constituted an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate” … . NMNT Realty Corp. v Knoxville 2012 Trust, 2017 NY Slip Op 05230, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEREFORE THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE WAS NOT VALID.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance should not have been denied. At the time plaintiff signed the discontinuance pro se, his attorney (Mulhern) had notified all parties he was no longer representing plaintiff, but the proper procedure for withdrawing as counsel had not been followed. Therefore the stipulation of discontinuance was not valid:

“Although a client may, as a matter of public policy, discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause…,  an attorney of record in an action may only withdraw or be changed or discharged in the manner prescribed by statute”… . “Until an attorney of record withdraws or is changed or discharged in the manner prescribed by CPLR 321, his [or her] authority as attorney of record for his [or her] client continues, as to adverse parties, unabated” … .

Here, at the time that the plaintiff executed the stipulation of discontinuance, he and Mulhern had not signed and filed a consent to change attorney form or sought a court order permitting Mulhern to withdraw as the plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, as to the defendants, Mulhern still was the plaintiff’s attorney … , and the plaintiff was not permitted to act pro se without consent of the court … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance should have been granted. Garafalo v Mayoka, 2017 NY Slip Op 05201, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

DEFENDANTS, OPERATORS OF A VIRGINIA HOTEL WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A SHOWER, DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF BUSINESS TIES TO NEW YORK, THE FACT THAT NEW YORKERS CAN MAKE RESERVATIONS THROUGH A WEBSITE IS NOT ENOUGH.

The Second Department determined defendants’ hotel’s motion to dismiss based upon the lack of business ties to New York was properly granted. Plaintiff was injured in a shower in the hotel, which is located in Virginia. The defendants demonstrated they did not do business in New York. The fact that reservations could be made through a website (accessed in New York) was not enough. There was no showing the injury was linked to the use of the website:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in New York. Moreover, accepting as true the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants were involved in maintaining or operating a website that permitted consumers in New York to make reservations at the subject hotel in Virginia, they failed to make a prima facie showing that there was a substantial relationship between the causes of action asserted in the complaint and any alleged transaction of business through that website … .

The plaintiffs also failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(4) based on ownership, use, or possession of any real property within the state … .

Furthermore, contrary to their contention, the plaintiffs have not made ” a sufficient start'” to warrant holding this branch of the defendants’ motion in abeyance while discovery is conducted on the issue of jurisdiction … . The plaintiffs have not alleged facts which would support personal jurisdiction under either CPLR 302(a)(1) or CPLR 302(a)(4), and thus have failed to indicate how further discovery might lead to evidence showing that personal jurisdiction exists here … . Leuthner v Homewood Suites by Hilton, 2017 NY Slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

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