You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS.

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the exclusion of plaintiff’s representative (a nurse) from the examination of plaintiff by defendant’s physician in this personal injury (traffic accident) action warranted sanctions:

… [A] plaintiff “is entitled to be examined in the presence of [his or] her attorney or other . . . representative . . . so long as [that person does] not interfere with the conduct of the examinations’ . . . , unless [the] defendant makes a positive showing of necessity for the exclusion of’ such an individual” … . Nonetheless … there is no requirement that a representative of plaintiff be present during the examination, and plaintiff may waive the right to have a representative present. Two examples of waiver are set forth by the dissent, the first of which involves the plaintiff’s merely appearing for the examination without a representative. Clearly, that is not the factual situation here. Second, a waiver can occur by the examined party’s unreasonable delay in making a motion to enforce the right … . Here, it was less than two months from the November 16, 2015 examination until the January 5, 2016 motion to preclude, not the 2½ years at issue in Pendergast, the decision relied upon the dissent. Marriott v Cappello, 2017 NY Slip Op 04580, 4th Dept 6-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN, THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN, THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS)/PRECLUDE, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN, THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS)/PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN, THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS)/DISCOVERY (EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN, THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS)

, , , ,

UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that documents concerning the investigation into petitioner’s husband’s death at a hospital were discoverable under the Public Health Law as long as the documents did not relate to the quality assurance aspect of the investigation. The court noted the criteria for what is discoverable and what is available under the Freedom of Information Act are not identical:

​

Respondents demonstrated that Public Health Law § 2805-m applied through the affidavit of DOH’s [Department of Health’s] Acting Records Access Officer, who detailed the investigative process and explained how the statement of deficiencies and plan of correction, as well as the ACTS [ASPEN Complaints/Incidents Tracking System] complaint/incident investigation report, incorporated information collected by the hospital for quality assurance purposes. Our in camera review of those documents confirms that her explanation was accurate. The redactions were therefore proper insofar as they related to quality assurance information and, “[h]aving found a specific guarantee of confidentiality, the privileged information and material is not subject to release or disclosure no matter how strong the showing of need or relevancy” … .

That being said, the redacted portions of investigative notes contained in the ACTS complaint/accident investigation report also include a summary of petitioner’s complaint and facts referring to hospital records with no obvious connection to quality assurance goals. This purely factual information did not, contrary to respondents’ assertion, fall within an intra-agency exemption designed “to safeguard internal government consultations and deliberations” … .The sections of the investigative notes labeled “Allegation #1” and “Findings” were improperly redacted and must be disclosed. Another redacted portion of the report restated the text of the letter sent to petitioner alerting her to the outcome of the investigation, and there is no apparent reason for those portions to be withheld. Matter of Pasek v New York State Dept. of Health, 2017 NY Slip Op 04526, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOSPITAL DEATH, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY,  UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION (HOSPITALS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)

, ,

THIRD DEPT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY.

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was required to supply defendant with the expert-opinion notice required by the CPLR, even though the doctor to be deposed (Cicoria) was a treating physician (the other departments do not so require). The deposition was video-taped. The Third Department fashioned a sanction. The videotaped deposition my be used if the doctor acts as a fact witness. If the doctor is to act as an expert witness, the doctor must testify in person or submit to another deposition:

​

Having concluded that plaintiffs failed to provide the required expert disclosure, we turn our attention to the appropriate remedy for such noncompliance. Plaintiffs’ counsel candidly conceded that he was unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record is otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful. Hence, we see no need to preclude plaintiffs from calling Cicoria to testify at trial. That said, defendant is correct in noting that the current procedural posture of this matter places defendant at something of a disadvantage in that defense counsel prepared for and cross-examined Cicoria as a fact witness and in the context of preserving such testimony for use at trial, which is appreciably different than deposing and cross-examining someone who has been denominated as an expert witness prior to trial. For that reason, simply permitting plaintiffs to file the required expert disclosure at this point will not suffice.

Plaintiffs need to decide whether they wish to utilize Cicoria as a fact witness or as an expert witness (or both). If plaintiffs wish to utilize Cicoria as a fact witness, they may either introduce his previously videotaped testimony at trial (see CPLR 3117 [a] [4]) — subject to defendant’s objections to the expert opinions expressed therein (see CPLR 3115 [a]) and/or a protective order relative thereto (see CPLR 3103 [a]) — or they may call Cicoria to testify in person at trial, in which case Cicoria’s prior recorded testimony may be used solely for impeachment purposes (see CPLR 3117 [a] [1]).  Plaintiffs cannot, however, as they now propose in their brief, have it both ways, i.e., they cannot utilize Cicoria’s recorded testimony as a fact witness and then call him live as an expert witness. Stated another way, Cicoria may testify only once. If plaintiffs desire to utilize Cicoria as an expert witness (or as both a fact witness and as an expert witness), they must — within 30 days of the date of this Court’s decision — tender an expert disclosure that satisfies all of the requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and — within 60 days of the date of this Court’s decision — produce Cicoria (at their expense) for the purpose of being deposed as an expert. Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 04527, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT WITNESS, NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/EXPERT WITNESS (CPLR NOTICE,  THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/TREATING PHYSICIAN (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT WITNESS NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT WITNESS, NOTICE, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EXPERT NOTICE, TREATING PHYSICIAN, THIRD DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY)

,

CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined two chimpanzees. Tommy and Kiko, were not entitled to orders transferring them from cages to a sanctuary, using the rationale behind habeas corpus. The main reason underlying the decision is the fact that similar requests for relief had been denied by other courts and nothing new was presented in support of the instant requests for relief. The court, however, did run through the arguments in support of the applicability of habeas corpus criteria in this context (not all of which are summarized here):

​

“The common law writ of habeas corpus, as codified by CPLR article 70, provides a summary procedure by which a person’ who has been illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his or her liberty can challenge the legality of the detention” … . While the word “person” is not defined in the statute, there is no support for the conclusion that the definition includes nonhumans, i.e., chimpanzees. While petitioner’s cited studies attest to the intelligence and social capabilities of chimpanzees, petitioner does not cite any sources indicating that the United States or New York Constitutions were intended to protect nonhuman animals’ rights to liberty, or that the Legislature intended the term “person” in CPLR article 70 to expand the availability of habeas protection beyond humans. No precedent exists, under New York law, or English common law, for a finding that a chimpanzee could be considered a “person” and entitled to habeas relief. In fact, habeas relief has never been found applicable to any animal… .

The asserted cognitive and linguistic capabilities of chimpanzees do not translate to a chimpanzee’s capacity or ability, like humans, to bear legal duties, or to be held legally accountable for their actions. Petitioner does not suggest that any chimpanzee charged with a crime in New York could be deemed fit to proceed, i.e., to have the “capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense” (CPL 730.10[1]). While in an amicus brief filed by Professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, it is suggested that it is possible to impose legal duties on nonhuman animals, noting the “long history, mainly from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking human beings and eating crops,” none of the cases cited took place in modern times or in New York. Moreover, as noted in an amicus brief submitted by Professor Richard Cupp, nonhumans lack sufficient responsibility to have any legal standing, which, according to Cupp is why even chimpanzees who have caused death or serious injury to human beings have not been prosecuted. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2017 NY Slip Op 04574, 1st Dept  6-8-17

 

ANIMAL LAW (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ANIMAL LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/ANIMAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/HABEAS CORPUS (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CHIMPANZEES (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)

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)

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