You are here: / Civil Procedure

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES OPERATING IN SPAIN, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the appellate division, determined that, although both plaintiff and defendant are businesses based in Spain, there were sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. Defendant’s wine was distributed by a New York company, Kobrand. “Through November 2006, defendant paid commissions to plaintiff in Spain on wine defendant sold to Kobrand. In or around January 2007, defendant stopped paying commissions to plaintiff even as defendant continued to sell wine to Kobrand. Defendant contends that its obligation to pay commissions under the oral agreement expired after one year:”

… [N]ot only was defendant physically present in New York on several occasions, but its activities here resulted in “‘the purposeful creation of a continuing relationship with a New York corporation'”… . Defendant’s contacts with New York establish that defendant purposefully availed itself of “the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”… . …

* * * … [T]he parties’ oral agreement was not performed “wholly in Spain” … . Rather … both sides engaged in activities in New York in furtherance of their agreement. There is an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between defendant’s New York activities and the parties’ contract, defendant’s alleged breach thereof, and potential damages. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s claim arises from defendant’s transaction of business in New York. …

… [D]efendant has established minimum contacts with New York by visiting the state on multiple occasions to promote its wine with the purpose of finding a United States distributor and thereafter selling wine to a New York-based distributor. … Having done so, defendant could reasonably foresee having to defend a lawsuit in New York. D&R Global Selections, S.L. v Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro, 2017 NY Slip Op 04494, CtApp 6-8-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE TWO SPANISH COMPANIES, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION)

, ,

CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED.

The Second Department determined a capsule camera swallowed by plaintiff to facilitate an intestinal examination was not a foreign object for purposes of the statute of limitations. The statute runs from discovery of a foreign object which has been left in the body during surgery. However, the capsule camera was not part of a surgical procedure and it was designed to pass out of the body normally. The plaintiff alleged that the failure to call plaintiff’s attention to a 2009 CT scan on which the capsule camera was visible constituted negligence. The Second Department found that the cause of action was really “misdiagnosis” for which the foreign-object toll of the statute of limitations is not available. The action was therefore time-barred:

​

Generally, “[a]n action for medical . . . malpractice must be commenced within two years and six months of the act, omission or failure complained of” (CPLR 214-a). However, “where the action is based upon the discovery of a foreign object in the body of the patient, the action may be commenced within one year of the date of such discovery or of the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-a). The statute provides that a “fixation device” is not a “foreign object” (CPLR 214-a).

” [I]n determining whether an object which remains in the patient constitutes a “foreign object,” [courts] should consider the nature of the materials implanted in a patient, as well as their intended function'” … . “In short, every fixation device is intentionally placed for a continuing (even if temporary) treatment purpose, but it does not follow that everything that is intentionally placed for a continuing treatment purpose is a fixation device”… . Thus, in determining whether objects are foreign objects pursuant to CPLR 214-a, “[t]he question then becomes whether . . . [the objects] are analogous to tangible items like . . . [surgical] clamps . . . or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure” … .

The capsule camera at issue herein was used diagnostically to visualize the condition of the plaintiff’s intestines. It was not used or even introduced into the plaintiff’s body in the course of a surgical procedure. Rather, the capsule camera was knowingly and intentionally swallowed by the plaintiff with the expectation that it would travel through her digestive system until eliminated in the regular course of digestion. Thus, the malpractice alleged against the moving defendants, the failure to recognize from the 2009 CT scan that the observed metallic object was a retained endoscopic capsule camera, and to advise the plaintiff of such, ” is most logically classified as one involving misdiagnosis—a category for which the benefits of the “foreign object” discovery rule have routinely been denied'”  … . Leace v Kohlroser, 2017 NY Slip Op 04429, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FOREIGN OBJECTS, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, FOREIGN OBJECT, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CAPSULE CAMERA (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FOREIGN OBJECT, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)

,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED.

The Second Department, in finding the foreclosure action time-barred, noted that the debt was accelerated (in a prior foreclosure proceeding) which started the six-year statute. The election to accelerate a debt can be revoked but was not here:

​

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to 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, in support of her cross motion, the defendant submitted proof that the mortgage debt was accelerated on May 15, 2007, when the plaintiff commenced the first action to foreclose the subject mortgage. Thus, the six-year limitations period expired prior to the commencement of the instant action on July 9, 2013. Moreover, while a lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage… , the record in this case is barren of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Barnett, 2017 NY Slip Op 04490, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)

,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the affidavit of service was filed in the wrong office. Service was timely made and the error was corrected as soon as it was known:

​

” The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion'” … .Here, there is no reason to believe that the defendants did not properly and timely serve Minard in compliance with the so-ordered stipulation dated December 8, 2014. Moreover, the defendants promptly requested permission to correct the irregularity in filing the affidavit of service after learning that it was filed in the wrong office, and there was no allegation or indication of prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the requested correction. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for an extension of time to file the affidavit of service in the Clerk’s office, and thereupon denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to file proof of service in that office … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04417, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (ERROR IN FILING, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)

, , ,

WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant City’s motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. The court held that whether the Big Apple map sufficiently identified the defective curb where plaintiff fell was a jury question and the verdict should stand:

​

“Although [t]he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident,’ where there are factual issues as to the precise location of the defect that caused a plaintiff’s fall and whether the defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury” … . The trial court improperly set aside the verdict against the City for lack of legally sufficient evidence that the City had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the curb at the corner where plaintiff indicated she fell … . A jury verdict may not be set aside for legal insufficiency unless there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . Here, it cannot be said that it was “utterly irrational for [the] jury to reach the result it has determined upon” … .

At trial, plaintiff testified that she tripped and fell, due to a defect at the corner of Madison Street and Rutgers Street. Plaintiff testified that she stepped off the curb with her left foot into the crosswalk on to Madison Street and that the tip of her right foot got caught on something on the ground, which caused her to fall and fracture her ankle. Plaintiff further testified that the curb where she tripped and fell was “separated from the sidewalk and raised.” Plaintiff also entered into evidence photographs of the street corner where she fell that depicted a broken, cracked and defective curb in front of 197 Madison Street. Another photograph entered into evidence showed that the address of “197 Madison St.” was clearly reflected on the H and M Deli storefront awning, located at the corner of the intersection where plaintiff fell. Counsel for the City further highlighted this point during re-cross-examination of plaintiff regarding the precise location of her fall, when counsel inquired, “In front of that H and M Deli?… The deli that is addressed 197 Madison, right?” To which plaintiff replied, “Yes.” Additionally, the Big Apple Map, which the City stipulated to receiving, denoted an “X” in front of 197-199 Madison Street, and, according to the Big Apple Map Legend, an “X” indicates a “broken, misaligned or uneven curb.”

​

… [W]hile it is true that the Big Apple Map did not have an “X” at the precise corner where plaintiff fell, the map did depict an “X” in front of the address of 197 Madison Street, which encompasses multiple storefronts within one building, stretching from the building on the corner towards the middle of the block. Foley v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04389, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, SLIP AND FALL, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, , ,

PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs had received title to real property free of any encumbrances. Plaintiffs had purchased the property from Edwin Ramsey. Ramsey and his wife. Bertha, had owned the property as tenants by the entirety. Upon the death of Bertha, Edwin owned the property free and clear. Defendant’s argument that the Ramsey’s had agreed to hold separate interests in the property was based upon hearsay, which, standing alone, will not defeat a summary judgment motion:

A disposition of real property to a husband and wife creates in them a tenancy by the entirety, unless expressly declared to be a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common” (EPTL 6-2.2[b]…). “[A] surviving tenant in a tenancy by the entirety receives the fee interest in its entirety, free and clear of any debts, claims, liens or other encumbrances as against the deceased spouse” … . Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, that they were entitled to summary judgment. Their evidence, including Edwin and Bertha’s 1968 marriage certificate and the 1972 deed, showed that Edwin and Bertha had a tenancy by the entirety in the property, as they were married at the time of the 1972 deed conveying the property to them and the deed did not “expressly declare[ ] [there] to be a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common” (EPTL 6-2.2[b]). Thus, when Bertha died in 2012, Edwin, as the surviving spouse, “receive[d] the fee interest in its entirety, free and clear of any debts, claims, liens or other encumbrances as against” Bertha … . Edwin was thereafter free to convey the property to the plaintiffs, which he did. Cormack v Burks, 2017 NY Slip Op 04252, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/REAL PROPERTY (TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY, PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

, ,

CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, in an action stemming from a traffic accident, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision for which punitive damages were sought. The facts were not discussed, but the court explained when a cause of action for negligent hiring seeking punitive damages is not precluded by the doctrine of respondeat superior:

Here, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently stated a demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendant driver. At this stage of the litigation, it is premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support the allegation that the defendant driver acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages … .

” Generally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior and no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring, retention, supervision or training'” … . However, “such a claim is permitted when punitive damages are sought based upon facts evincing gross negligence in the hiring or retention of an employee” … . Gipe v DBT Xpress, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04258, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE, CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

, , ,

MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to renew the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim was erroneously deemed a motion to reargue (by Supreme Court) and was erroneously denied. Leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. The wrongful death action was brought on behalf of a county worker who was killed when he fell off the back of a dump truck after the truck allegedly struck a bump in the road. The Second Department noted: (1) the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim runs from the appointment of the administrator of decedent’s estate; (2) the motion presented new evidence which was not previously available and was therefore a motion to renew, not reargue; (3) the county had notice of the facts of the action within the 90-day period; (4) the county did not demonstrate prejudice related to the delay in filing the notice of claim (even though the road defect had been repaired):

The County acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim before a representative of the estate was appointed. The [police department] conducted an investigation, took photographs of, inter alia, the subject roadway condition, obtained a statement from the driver of the truck, and prepared a case report that detailed the nature and the alleged cause of the accident. In addition, … Inasmuch as the County acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim and actually conducted an investigation, the petitioner made an initial showing that the County was not prejudiced by his delay in serving a notice of claim … . The County claims that it will nonetheless be prejudiced by the delay because the roadway where the accident occurred has been repaved and because it will be unable to locate witnesses. The County, however, had recognized the need for repairs of the roadway before the petitioner was appointed as administrator, and it issued work orders to repair the roadway only a few days after the petitioner was appointed. Thus, any prejudice resulting from the changed condition of the road was not caused by the petitioner’s delay in serving a notice of claim … . In any event, the County took photographs of the defect and inspected the location after the accident … . The County also failed to make a showing that any of the witnesses are unavailable. Thus, the County failed to respond to the petitioner’s initial showing as to lack of prejudice with a particularized showing that the petitioner’s delay in serving a notice of claim will prejudice it in its defense on the merits … . Matter of Kerner v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 04277, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY SUPREME COURT SUA SPONTE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction in this foreclosure action should have been denied. Defendant had appeared by an attorney (notice of appearance) and thereby waived any “lack of personal jurisdiction” argument. The Second Department further noted that Supreme Court should not have raised the defendant’s lack of standing sua sponte:

… [T]he defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over her. Pursuant to CPLR 320(a), “[t]he defendant appears by serving an answer or a notice of appearance, or by making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer.” Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here (see CPLR 320[c]), “an appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him, unless an objection to jurisdiction under [CPLR 3211(a)(8)] is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in [CPLR 3211]” (CPLR 320[b]). “By statute, a party may appear in an action by attorney (CPLR 321), and such an appearance constitutes an appearance by the party for purposes of conferring jurisdiction” … . Here, the defendant’s attorney appeared in the action on her behalf by filing a notice of appearance  … , and neither the defendant nor her attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time or asserted lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading … . Accordingly, the defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her in this action … . To the extent that prior decisions of this Court could be interpreted to require a different result … , they should no longer be followed. American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis, 2017 NY Slip Op 04242, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION)/FORECLOSURE (STANDING, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SUA SPONTE)

, , ,

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted the petition for pre-action disclosure of the identity of the person or persons who widely distributed an intimate photo of a portion of a high school student’s (the potential plaintiff’s) body and identified the student depicted in the photo. The purpose of the disclosure was to identify potential defendants. The facts were sufficient to support an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress:

“Before an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbitration, may be obtained, but only by court order” (CPLR 3102[c]…). “[D]isclosure to aid in bringing an action’ (CPLR 3102 [c]) authorizes discovery to allow a plaintiff to frame a complaint and to obtain the identity of the prospective defendants”… .. However, pre-action disclosure “may not be used to determine whether the plaintiff has a cause of action” … . This limitation is “designed to prevent the initiation of troublesome and expensive procedures, based upon a mere suspicion, which may annoy and intrude upon an innocent party” … . “Where, however, the facts alleged state a cause of action, the protection of a party’s affairs is no longer the primary consideration and an examination to determine the identities of the parties and what form or forms the action should take is appropriate” … .  Accordingly, “[a] petition for pre-action discovery limited to obtaining the identity of prospective defendants should be granted where the petitioner has alleged facts fairly indicating that he or she has some cause of action” … . * * *

Under New York law, a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress “has four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress”… . . In support of its argument that the petition failed to allege facts that would constitute a cognizable cause of action against the unidentified individual, the school contends that the petition failed to adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct.

The element of outrageous conduct “serves the dual function of filtering out petty and trivial complaints that do not belong in court, and assuring that plaintiff’s claim of severe emotional distress is genuine” … . ” Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … .  Indeed, “where severe mental pain or anguish is inflicted through a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation, a remedy is available in the form of an action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress” … . Here, assuming the truth of the facts alleged in the petition, the acts complained of could be found by a trier of fact to amount to extreme and outrageous conduct which cannot be tolerated in a civilized community … . Matter of Leff v Our Lady of Mercy Academy, 2017 NY Slip Op 04280, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/INTENTIONAL TORTS (INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/PHOTOGRAPHS (INTIMATE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/DISCLOSURE (PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)/PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE (IDENTIFY DEFENDANTS, PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

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