You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE.

The First Department determined the defendant in this condominium foreclosure action was not entitled to a mandatory mortgage foreclosure settlement conference. The court had ordered settlement conferences in the past and defendant had refused to participate:

The express language of the condominium’s bylaws permitted the appointment of a receiver, without notice, to collect unpaid common charges in this foreclosure action. Further, the record demonstrates that while defendant, an owner of an apartment in the condominium, paid maintenance arrears after plaintiff board filed a notice of lien and commenced the action to foreclose on the lien, she still owed plaintiff for assessments, late fees and associated attorney’s fees. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to seek judgment for these fees, which constitute common charges under the bylaws… . We reject defendant’s claim that she was entitled to a mandatory mortgage foreclosure settlement conference, particularly since the court directed the parties to engage in settlement conferences to resolve this matter, and it appears that defendant, for the most part, refused to participate. Board of Mgrs. of St. James’s Tower Condominium v Kutler, 2017 NY Slip Op 03605, 1st Dept 5-4-17

FORECLOSURE (CONDOMINIUMS, DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)/CONDOMINIUMS (FORECLOSURE, MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. Defendants submitted proof on the relevant issues (the treatment of plaintiff by defendant Slavin on January 26, 2009) and did not demonstrate amending the pleadings would result in any prejudice to them:

As the parties opposing such amendment, defendants had the burden of establishing that they had been prejudiced, that is that they “ha[d] been hindered in the preparation of [their] case or ha[d] been prevented from taking some measure in support of [their] position” … . That burden cannot be met when the difference between the original pleading and the evidence results from “‘proof admitted at the instance or with the acquiescence of [the opposing] party'”… . * * *

… [A]s defendants acquiesced to the introduction of the evidence of Slavin’s negligence on January 26, 2009, they could not meet their burden when they later opposed plaintiff’s cross motion to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial … . Even if this were not the case, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing prejudice. Defendants’ contentions that they had been unprepared for cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert was conclusory, as defendants failed to offer a single example as to the manner in which the introduction of evidence that Slavin was negligent on January 26, 2009 hindered their cross-examination. Morever, defendants’ claims that they were prejudiced by the introduction of the January 26, 2009 negligence were unsupported by specific examples or proof in the record. More generally, the record establishes that plaintiffs had plainly notified defendants by their bills of particulars that plaintiff had been treated by Slavin on January 26, 2009 and that Slavin’s negligence included his failure to recognize, from imaging studies, the need to perform a closed reduction on plaintiff’s injured leg. Noble v Slavin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03578, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, MOTION TO CONFORM TO PROOF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, AMENDMENT OF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

“Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 2½ year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment, when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'” … . The doctrine “applies when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient,” which is generally “manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during that last visit, . . . for the purpose of administering ongoing corrective efforts for the same or a related condition” …  Further “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment” ,,, ,

In the present case, [defendant doctor] testified at his deposition that when he discussed treatment options with the plaintiff, he advised the plaintiff that a new treatment process was available outside the United States and that he was cautiously optimistic that, at some time in the foreseeable future, he could offer it to the plaintiff in New York. The plaintiff, who was aware that the treatment process was the subject of a study aimed at obtaining FDA approval, testified at his deposition that he was waiting for the new treatment process to become available. After being told, in November 2008, that his only options were to wait for the new treatment or seek treatment outside the country, the plaintiff returned to the defendants for treatment of the same condition on March 9, 2011, and, in fact, received treatment for the same condition from the defendants continuing until December 2012. Freely v Donnenfeld, 2017 NY Slip Op 03491, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.

The Second Department, in finding plaintiff bank had established standing to bring the foreclosure action, explained when a court may consider new information in a reply affidavit (re: a motion for summary judgment):

… [I]t was not error for the Supreme Court to consider the reply affidavit, which was submitted in reply to the appellant’s opposition. A party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … . However, there are exceptions to this general rule, including when the evidence is submitted in response to allegations raised for the first time in the opposition papers or when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers… . Further, “[t]he function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly considered the reply affidavit because the affidavit was offered in response to the appellant’s allegation in opposition to the motion that the plaintiff never had possession of the note, and merely clarified the plaintiff’s initial submissions as to its possession of the note at the time of commencement … . Central Mtge. Co. v Jahnsen, 2017 NY Slip Op 03474, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/REPLY PAPERS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FORECLOSURE, NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/FORECLOSURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)

CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure original documents in this medical malpractice action for forensic analysis was properly denied (albeit for the wrong reason). The court explained the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s motion:

As to the motion to produce original records for forensic analysis, the plaintiff failed to establish that the proposed testing was not destructive, and failed to adequately indicate the extent to which the testing would alter or destroy the original records … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish adequate justification for the testing … . Freely v Donnenfeld, 2017 NY Slip Op 03490, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/DISCLOSURE (ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

, , , ,

DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Kolli’s) credentialing file was privileged and therefore not discoverable. The discovery request for the doctor’s personnel file was too broad; whether any parts of it are privileged must be determined document by document:

​

Concerning the discoverability of Dr. Kolli’s credentialing file, we note that such files “fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law”… . That privilege shields from disclosure ” the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical . . . malpractice prevention program’ ” .. . Here, defendants established that the credentialing file was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to [article 28 of the] Public Health Law” … . We therefore conclude that the credentialing file is privileged and that the court improperly ordered defendants to disclose it… .

Although there is an exception to the privilege, the exception is limited to those statements made by a doctor to his or her employer-hospital concerning the subject matter of a malpractice action and pursuant to the hospital’s quality-control inquiry into the incident underlying that action … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, that exception does not apply here because the injury underlying this action was never the subject of such an inquiry. Jousma v Kolli, 2017 NY Slip Op 03308, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CREDENTIALING FILE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PERSONNEL FILE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)

,

FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION.

The Fourth Department determined that a second plenary action for fraud allegedly committed in a foreclosure proceeding is not proper. The proper remedy is a motion to vacate the judgment in the foreclosure proceeding:

​

“To the extent that the [amended] complaint alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party committed during the course of the prior litigation, plaintiff[s’] sole remedy was a motion to vacate the court’s prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3). A litigant’s remedy for alleged fraud in the course of a legal proceeding lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the [judgment] due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the” judgment … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, this case does not fit within the exception … which applies when the alleged fraud or perjury “is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme,” i.e., one “greater in scope than [that] in the prior proceeding” … .  MAA-Sharda, Inc. v First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03290, 4th Dept 4-28-17

FRAUD (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, determined the action by the respondent school district (re: terminating certain health insurance available to retirees) was not quasi-legislative. Therefore the four-month statute of limitations for petitioners’ Article 78 contesting the school district’s action did not start to run upon the mailing of the undated notification letter. The respondents, therefore, did not demonstrate the Article 78 proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations:

​

A quasi-legislative-type administrative determination is one having an impact far beyond the immediate parties at the administrative stage… . Thus, where a quasi-legislative determination is challenged, “actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock” … . The policy underlying the rule is that actual notice to the general public is not practicable … . Instead, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s quasi-legislative determination of the issue becomes “readily ascertainable” to the complaining party… .

On the other hand, where the public at large is not impacted by a determination, actual notice, commonly in the form of receipt of a letter or other writing containing the final and binding determination, is required to commence the statute of limitations … . * * *

​

… [I]nasmuch as respondents, in our view, failed to meet their burden to establish when the four-month statute of limitations commenced, the burden did not shift to petitioners to establish any particular date of individual receipt of the undated letter. In any event, respondents failed to establish any dates of receipt by petitioners in their moving papers. Matter of Knavel v West Seneca Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03416, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/QUASI-LEGISLATIVE ACTION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/ARTICLE 78 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (ARTICLE 78, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department, in affirming summary judgment for defendant in this dog bite case, noted that hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Defendant (Nicole) demonstrated she had no knowledge the dog had vicious propensities. In response, plaintiff presented only hearsay:

​

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through Nicole’s deposition testimony, that she was not aware, nor should she have been aware, that the dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior … . Nicole testified that she had purchased the dog when it was two months old, the dog had undergone obedience training, and the dog had never attacked or bitten anyone before the incident at issue.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that, prior to this incident, the dog had exhibited fierce or hostile tendencies was hearsay, which is insufficient, on its own, to bar summary judgment … . Ciliotta v Ranieri, 2017 NY Slip Op 03150, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/DOG BITE  (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

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