You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR WORK ON THE AREA OF THE FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED.

The First Department determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The First Department further held that photographs of the sinkhole where plaintiff fell (taken two weeks after the injury) and the contract specifications for repair of the sinkhole should not have been excluded from evidence. In addition plaintiff’s subpoenas for a city inspector and a principal of the contractor (Halcyon) which repaired the sinkhole should not have been quashed. The fact that those witnesses were not deposed did not preclude plaintiff’s calling them at trial:

… [T]he trial court erred in precluding pictures of the accident site … . Plaintiff authenticated the photographs at his deposition, and further testimony at trial could have explained how and why the scene depicted in the photos did or did not differed from the scene on the day of the accident … . Exclusion of the photographs meant that plaintiff was unable to show the jury the hole into which he allegedly fell.

Nor should the court have precluded the City’s specifications incorporated into its contract with Halcyon. The specifications were expressly incorporated into the contract between Halcyon and the City; thus, they applied not only to the City itself, but also to third parties. Therefore, they were admissible as potential evidence of defendants’ negligence… , and indeed, the City failed to show how the specifications transcended the duty of reasonable care. The trial court’s exclusion of this evidence regarding the specifications hobbled plaintiff’s ability to prove that the City had engaged in affirmative negligence — the very basis upon which the trial court granted the directed verdict.

Likewise, the court erred in quashing the subpoenas directed to the City’s onsite inspector and a principal of Halcyon … . Although plaintiff did not formally name the City’s onsite inspector and the principal of Halcyon as witnesses, nothing in the CPLR requires a party to generate a trial witness list, nor does the record indicate that the individual court rules required him to do so … . Indeed, there is no requirement that a party depose a witness in order to call him or her as a witness at trial. Gonzalez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05180, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

,

NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the document submitted by plaintiff was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. Therefore the document could be served without permission from the court:

​

In his original bill of particulars dated February 8, 2006, the injured plaintiff alleged that he sustained permanent personal injuries, including depression, insomnia, agitation, poor concentration, loneliness, and tenseness, and that his injuries were accompanied by distress, depression, stress, and psychological difficulties. After the Supreme Court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed on appeal … and the case was restored to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs served, pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), an expert witness disclosure dated August 4, 2013, and the affidavit of their expert psychologist dated April 27, 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served a supplemental bill of particulars dated February 17, 2015, alleging the additional injuries or damages of post-traumatic stress disorder and future costs of long-term psychotherapy. In the order appealed from, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the supplemental bill of particulars and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to compel the defendant to accept the supplemental bill of particulars. The court found that the supplemental bill of particulars sought to add new injuries, thereby rendering it an amended bill of particulars, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the inordinate delay in seeking leave to include the new injuries. The plaintiffs appeal.

Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff in a personal injury action may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing “continuing special damages and disabilities,” without leave of the court at any time, but not less than 30 days prior to trial, if it alleges “no new cause of action” or claims no “new injury.” Here, the plaintiffs sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in the original bill of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries … . Since the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars, and was served more than 30 days prior to trial, leave of court was not required … . Khosrova v Hampton Bays Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05075, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILL OF PARTICULARS, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPPLEMENTAL VERSUS AMENDED, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)

,

INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of the allegedly forged signature on a power of attorney was insufficient to support declaring the power of attorney null and void:

​

“A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed'”… . ” [A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing so as to amount to a moral certainty'” … .

​

Here, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of validity of the acknowledged power of attorney. Although an expert opinion is not necessarily required in order to establish that a document is a forgery, where an expert opinion is offered, the expert must “state with reasonable professional certainty that the signature at issue is not authentic” … . The plaintiff failed to present evidence authenticating the group of 31 exemplars upon which the plaintiff’s handwriting expert primarily relied … . Further, although the handwriting expert testified that he relied on several additional exemplars, those exemplars likewise were not authenticated … . Consequently, the testimony of the handwriting expert should not have been considered … .

The testimony of the plaintiff and other witnesses was not sufficient to establish, to a moral certainty, that the 2002 power of attorney was forged. The plaintiff denied having signed the 2002 power of attorney. However, “[s]omething more than a bald assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature”… . Kanterakis v Minos Realty I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05074, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORGERY, POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (FORGERY, POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/FORGERY (POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EXPERT OPINION (FORGERY, POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/FORGERY (POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (POWER OF ATTORNEY, INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined the attorney general properly subpoenaed documents relevant to whether the non-profit Evergreen was practicing medicine without a license, but the subpoena had to be tailored to protect the First Amendment rights of Evergreen personnel. Evergreen counsels women in an effort to convince them not to terminate their pregnancies:

​

There is no question that the Attorney General’s investigation is of the utmost importance to protecting the health and safety of women. However, it is equally important that such investigation be carried out with respect and sensitivity to the constitutional rights of those involved. While the subpoena seeks documents that generally bear a reasonable relation to the subject matter of the Attorney General’s investigation, the demands are not narrowly tailored to require production of only those documents directly related to Evergreen’s alleged unauthorized practice of medicine. Thus, we limit in scope the demands set forth in the subpoena to require the disclosure of only those documents that are substantially related to the Attorney General’s legitimate need to gather evidence to determine whether Evergreen has engaged in the unauthorized practice of medicine and which do not unnecessarily intrude on Evergreen’s First Amendment right to freedom of association. Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 05086, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUBPOENAS, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (SUBPOENAS, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)/ABORTION (SUBPOENAS, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)/SUBPOENAS (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)/FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION (SUBPOENAS, ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BEFORE DEFENDANT WAS MADE A PARTY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE.

The Second Department determined a notice of appearance filed on behalf of a defendant (Dariusz Lojek) before he was made a party waived any subsequent defense alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. The subsequent amended summons and complaint naming Lojek as a party was deemed a nullity. After the statute of limitations passed, Lojek moved to dismiss:

​

On August 22, 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against Asconcio, Inter Euro, Darek Cake Company, and the Grimaldi Bakery Co. Dariusz Lojek, the principal of both Inter Euro and Darek Cake, Inc., was not initially named as a defendant in the action. However, on June 20, 2012, Dariusz Lojek’s attorney filed a notice of appearance on his behalf, and demanded “that all Notices and Demands in this action be served upon the undersigned attorney at the address set forth below.” In a letter to the attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendants in the action, Dariusz Lojek’s attorney asked for “copies of any legal papers which you may have already filed in this action,” and requested to be advised of “pending appearances.”

Over three months later, on September 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed a supplemental summons and amended complaint deleting the defendant Grimaldi Bakery Co. from the caption, correcting the name of the defendant Darek Cake Company to Darek Cake, Inc., and adding Marzena Lojek and Dariusz Lojek, the alleged principals of Inter Euro and Darek Cake, Inc., as defendants in the action. Darek Cake, Inc., Marzena Lojek, and Dariusz Lojek were served with the supplemental summons and amended complaint in December 2012. …

Since the plaintiff failed to obtain leave of court or a stipulation between the parties before serving and filing the supplemental summons and amended complaint, that service may be deemed a nullity, and the amended complaint dismissed insofar as asserted against the additional parties for lack of personal jurisdiction … .

However, lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived … . Under the circumstances of this case, by his appearance in June 2012 and his voluntary participation in the action, Dariusz Lojek submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and waived any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction within the applicable statute of limitations … . Jaramillo v Asconcio, 2017 NY Slip Op 05073, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, WAIVER OF DEFENSES, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BEFORE DEFENDANT WAS MADE A PARTY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE)/ATTORNEYS (NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, WAIVER OF DEFENSES, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BEFORE DEFENDANT WAS MADE A PARTY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE)/NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (WAIVER OF JURISDICTIONAL DEFENSE,  NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BEFORE DEFENDANT WAS MADE A PARTY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE)

FURTHER LAWSUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE PROPERLY PROHIBITED BY THE COURT.

The Second Department determined it was appropriate to prohibit further lawsuits in this long-standing series of actions between husband and wife:

​

The plaintiff appeals from the denial of that branch of his motion which was to enjoin the defendants from commencing any new litigation against, or engaging in any applications or motion practice in existing actions involving, the plaintiff, his medical practice, his wife, Janet Rugg Lew, or his counsel, Wand & Goody, LLP, without prior written permission of the Supreme Court. Although public policy generally mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in vexatious litigation … . Here, the record reflects that both the plaintiff and the defendants have engaged in extensive vexatious litigation against each other in the Family Court and the Supreme Court from 2003 to the present. Under the circumstances of this case, it would only be appropriate to enjoin the defendants from engaging in further litigation if the plaintiff was enjoined as well. Accordingly, we reverse the order entered September 3, 2014, insofar as appealed from, and grant the subject branch of the plaintiff’s motion on condition that he stipulate that he be likewise enjoined from commencing any new litigation against the defendants or engaging in any applications or motion practice in existing actions involving the defendants without written permission of the Supreme Court. If the plaintiff does not so stipulate and serve and file such stipulation in accordance with the terms of this order, then we affirm the order insofar as appealed from. Lew v Sobel, 2017 NY Slip Op 05076, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FURTHER LAWSUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE PROPERLY PROHIBITED BY THE COURT)/VEXATIOUS LITIGATION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FURTHER LAWSUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE PROPERLY PROHIBITED BY THE COURT)

​

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city was entitled to compel discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook posts in this wrongful arrest and prosecution action. The Facebook information tended to show the use of an alias by plaintiff (Moe), which plaintiff had denied, and included a photograph of plaintiff’s nephew who was present at the premises where the search warrant was executed:

​

… [T]he City made a threshold showing that examination of the above Facebook accounts will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence bearing on the claim… . As such, plaintiff is directed to review and provide or permit access to those Facebook and associated Messenger accounts, including their messenger components, and any deleted materials which contain any information connecting plaintiff to the accounts in question, connecting him to any variation of the nickname “Moe,” or relevant to his claims that he has had no connection to the apartment searched or the contraband located thereat. Plaintiff shall also provide an authorization permitting Facebook to release the photograph purported to be of plaintiff’s nephew, including any metadata associated with the photograph. Production shall be made within 30 days of this order and it is without prejudice to plaintiff seeking, prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, a protective order for expressly identified materials on these Facebook accounts seeking protection from discovery for reasons other than relevancy. Flowers v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05040, 1st Dept 6-20-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, FACEBOOK POSTS, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FACEBOOK POSTS, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FACEBOOK (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in this Labor Law 240 (1) action, based on plaintiff’s fall from a ladder, was premature. The ruling on the motion was based solely on the deposition of the plaintiff:

​

Stephen J. Jones (plaintiff), an employee and owner of third-party defendant Stephen J. Jones Contracting, Inc., fell from a ladder while working on a single-family home. Plaintiff and his wife thereafter commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action against, inter alia, defendant-third-party plaintiff Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc. (defendant), the general contractor on the project. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). We agree with defendant that, in view of the limited discovery that has been conducted, Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion … . Notably, discovery has been limited to plaintiff’s own account of the accident during his examination before trial, and defendant has not had an opportunity to explore potential defenses … . Jones v Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05017, 4th Dept 6-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)

, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department reversed the dismissal of this Labor Law retaliatory discharge cause of action in the interest of justice. The two-year statute of limitations ended on a Saturday. The action was commenced on the next business day (a Tuesday following Columbus Day), rendering the action timely. The correct calculation had not been raised below or on appeal:

​

Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on October 10, 2013, we note that the two-year statute of limitations period ended on a Saturday and therefore was extended until “the next succeeding business day” (General Construction Law § 25-a [1]…). Because Columbus Day fell on the Monday following that Saturday (see § 24), the next business day was October 13, 2015, the date on which the action was commenced. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore was timely.

Although plaintiff did not assert that calculation in opposing defendant’s motion before the motion court or on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider it sua sponte in the interest of justice … . As noted above, defendant had the burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired, and it could not refute that such period was extended by operation of law to October 13, 2015 … . Wilson v Exigence of Team Health, 2017 NY Slip Op 04993, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CALCULATION, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW (CALCULATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s notices of discontinuance were timely. Supreme Court had held the notices were not timely because they were filed after defendants’ motions to dismiss.  The statute requires that a discontinuance (without the need for court involvement) be filed before any responsive pleadings. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading:

​

We conclude that the notices of discontinuance were not untimely because a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is not a “responsive pleading” for purposes of CPLR 3217 (a) (1). A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 does not fall within the meaning of a “pleading” as defined by CPLR 3011. Rather, a “motion” is defined in the CPLR as “an application for an order” (CPLR 2211). Indeed, the terms “responsive pleading” and “motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211” are not used interchangeably in the CPLR but, rather, are treated as distinct, separate items. For instance, CPLR 3211 (d) provides that, under certain circumstances, “the court may deny the [CPLR 3211] motion, allowing the moving party to assert the objection in his responsive pleading” ([emphasis added]). Likewise, CPLR 3211 (e) provides that, “[a]t any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more grounds set forth in [CPLR 3211 (a)].” It is clear from the language used throughout the CPLR that the Legislature did not intend a CPLR 3211 motion to be considered a “responsive pleading.”  Harris v Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 04970, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/DISCONTINUANCE, NOTICE OF (NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)

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