You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the medical malpractice (2 1/2 year) rather than the negligence (3 year) statute of limitations applied to this action stemming from the alleged failure to restrain a patient (plaintiff’s decedent) with dementia. The patient was injured when she fell. The court held the action was governed by the medical malpractice limitations period and was therefore untimely:

​

“The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . Generally, a claim will be deemed to sound in medical malpractice “when the challenged conduct constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician'” … . Thus, when the complaint challenges a medical facility’s performance of functions that are “an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment” and diagnosis to a patient, such as taking a medical history and determining the need for restraints, the action sounds in medical malpractice… .

… The defendants’ evidence showed that on April 12, 2009, the plaintiff’s decedent, Ruby Bell (hereinafter the decedent), was admitted to New Island Hospital with a history of dementia, and placed on “Fall Prevention Protocol.” After the decedent was found standing at her bedside trying to remove her foley catheter, a physician ordered that she be restrained with a vest and wrist restraints. On the morning of April 18, 2009, the decedent was discovered sitting on the floor next to her bed. The bed’s side rails were up and the decedent was not aware of how she came to be on the floor. She had apparently fallen while trying to climb out of her bed. Thereafter, the decedent was diagnosed with a distal radius fracture of the right forearm. The plaintiff alleged that this incident arose out of the failure of the defendants’ staff to follow the physician’s order to restrain her … .

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegations at issue essentially challenged the defendants’ assessment of the decedent’s supervisory and treatment needs … . Bell v WSNCHS N., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05937, 2nd Dept 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the file for a pre-litigation investigation of a fire insurance claim done by a law firm hired by the insurer was discoverable.  The court further found the attorney who conducted the investigation was properly disqualified because she may be a fact witness in the underlying litigation, but her law firm should not have been disqualified because her testimony would not be prejudicial to the client’s case:

​

CPLR 3101(a) entitles parties to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” Discovery determinations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis “with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure” … .

“[T]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding [whether to pay or reject a claim] are made in the regular course of its business” … . Reports prepared by insurance investigators, adjusters, or attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are not privileged and are discoverable, even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly compelled disclosure, as the material … was prepared by [the law firm] as part of [the insurer’s] investigation into the claim, and was not primarily and predominantly of a legal character … . …

​

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying … the attorney who conducted the investigation … since she was likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact … . However, it improvidently exercised its discretion in disqualifying [the law firm] itself …. Pursuant to Rule 3.7(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “[a] lawyer may not act as [an] advocate before a tribunal in a matter if . . . another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client”… . Here, there was no showing that [the attorney’s] testimony may be prejudicial to [the client’s] case … . Advanced Chimney, Inc. v Graziano, 2017 NY Slip Op 05927, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (DISCOVERY, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have rejected plaintiff’s request for more time to file opposition papers. On the return date for the motion to dismiss, plaintiff tried to file a stipulation signed by defendant’s (NCAA’s) counsel which allowed plaintiff to adjourn the motion and granted plaintiff more time in which to file the papers. The court rejected the stipulation and marked the motion unopposed. That same evening, plaintiff e-filed the opposing papers:

​

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” In considering a motion for an extension of time, “the court may properly consider factors such as the length of the delay, whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the delay, the reason given for the delay, whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension, and, if so, the presence or absence of an affidavit of merit” … .

Here, the plaintiff established good cause for an extension of his time to submit opposition papers to the NCAA’s motion given the brief and unintentional delay, the lack of prejudice to the NCAA, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the NCAA’s motion, and “the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits” … . Calderone v Molloy Coll., 2017 NY Slip Op 05932, Second Dept 8-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 2004, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))

​

CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined CPLR 5003-a, which requires the prompt payment of a settlement to the plaintiff, does not apply to payments owed to a third-party, even though the settlement agreement requires that the third party be paid. Here the settlement agreement required defendant to pay a Worker’s Compensation lien:

… [W]e conclude that CPLR 5003-a applies only to the nonpayment of settlement monies owed directly to a settling plaintiff pursuant to a settlement agreement. This construction is not only in accord with the plain language of the prompt payment mandate itself, but is also supported by the language of the statutory enforcement mechanism set forth in subdivision (e). CPLR 5003-a (e), the teeth that effectuate subdivision (a)’s prompt payment directive, authorizes an “unpaid plaintiff” to enter judgment inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements against the nonpaying settling defendant … . Simply put, plaintiff here is not “unpaid” — all sums required to be paid to him pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement (i.e., $3.25 million) were paid by defendant within the statutorily-prescribed 21-day time period. Had the Legislature intended to extend the reach of CPLR 5003-a to a settling defendant’s failure to promptly pay all valuable consideration due a settling plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, it could have easily said so. It did not, and “‘a court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there'” … . Ronkese v Tilcon N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05905, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SETTLEMENTS, CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT)/SETTLEMENTS (CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the golf-course sprinkler-valve-hole, which caused plaintiff’s decedent to trip and fall, was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course, thereby overcoming the assumption of risk doctrine. Supreme Court should not have excluded the photographs of the area where plaintiff fell. Contrary to Supreme Court’s reasoning, the person who authenticated the photographs was a not a notice witness who should have been named prior to the filing of the note of issue:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject condition was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course … In this regard, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting the affidavits and photographic evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to identify John Flower as a notice witness prior to filing the note of issue. The disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 include the obligation to disclose the names of witnesses “if they are material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Here, Flower did not possess information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. In his affidavit, Flower merely authenticated certain photographs, most of which had been submitted by the decedent with his notice of claim prior to his death. Consequently, the court should not have rejected Flower’s affidavit and the attendant photographs on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to identify Flower as a notice witness prior to the filing of the note of issue. As a related matter, the court improperly rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert on the ground that he relied upon the photographs. Further, the court should not have rejected the two remaining affidavits from individuals who were disclosed to the defendant prior to the filing of the note of issue. MacIsaac v Nassau County, 2017 NY Slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (GOLF, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/GOLF (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/NOTICE WITNESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)

,

PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined petitioner, an inmate who sought admission to the prison nursery program for her and her child, was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Petitioner’s admission to the program had been withdrawn by the prison superintendent (Kaplan) so petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding with an order to show cause. The judge signed the order to show cause and allowed petitioner’s admission to the program pending a hearing. Before the hearing, the superintendent reversed her prior ruling and allowed petitioner to stay in the program. The Second Department held that petitioner was not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the EAJA, and, even if she had been a prevailing party, the superintendent’s actions were justified:

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner was not a “prevailing party” under CPLR 8601(a) and 8602(f), albeit for a different reason. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the stipulation entered into between the parties …, which was so-ordered by the court, did not reflect a material change in the legal relationship between the parties because the petitioner’s claims had already been rendered moot by Kaplan’s voluntary decision on December 30, 2014, to vacate her earlier decision removing the petitioner from the Nursery Program … . Furthermore, the petitioner did not achieve prevailing party status by obtaining a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction from the court directing the respondents to admit the [*2]petitioner to the Nursery Program pending the outcome of the proceeding … . Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2017 NY Slip Op 05724, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/ATTORNEYS  (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/INMATES (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)

, , ,

A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined an arbitration provision in plaintiff insurance agent’s employment contract was unenforceable with respect to collective actions, here a class action concerning wage and hour claims:

… [W]e conclude … that arbitration provisions such as the one in [plaintiff’s] contract, which prohibit class, collective, or representative claims, violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and thus, that those provisions are unenforceable.

In reaching this conclusion, we agree with the reasoning in Lewis v Epic Sys. Corp. (823 F3d 1147 [7th Cir 2016], cert granted __ US __, 137 S Ct 809 [2017]), the recent case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which addressed the enforceability of arbitration agreements prohibiting collective actions. In Lewis, the plaintiff employee agreed to an arbitration agreement mandating that wage and hour claims could be brought only through]individual arbitration and requiring employees to waive “the right to participate in or receive money or any other relief from any class, collective, or representative proceeding” … . The arbitration agreement also included a clause stating that if the waiver were unenforceable, “any claim brought on a class, collective, or representative action basis must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction” … .

… The plaintiff [in Lewis] argued that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because it interfered with employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection, and was therefore unenforceable … .

The Seventh Circuit denied the employer’s motion to proceed under the arbitration clause, declining to enforce a clause that precluded employees from “seeking any class, collective, or representative remedies to wage-and-hour disputes” because the clause “violate[d] Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA” (id. at 1161). According to the Court, section 7 of the NLRA provided that employees have the right to engage in concerted activities, and concerted activities “have long been held to include resort to . . . judicial forums” (id. at 1152) [internal quotation marks omitted]. The Seventh Circuit also found that a lawsuit filed “by a group of employees to achieve more favorable terms or conditions of employment” is considered to constitute “concerted activity” under section 7 of the NLRA (id.) [internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court held, contracts such as the one at issue were unenforceable under the NLRA because they “stipulate away employees’ [s]ection 7 rights or otherwise require actions unlawful under the NRLA” (id. at 1155). Gold v New York Life Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05695, 1st Dept 7-18-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTIONS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/CLASS ACTIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, ARBITRATION,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/ARBITRATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CLASS ACTIONS,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ARBITRATION,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/INSURANCE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ARBITRATION, A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)

, ,

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)

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