You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD ALLEGATIONS WHICH MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this traffic accident case should have been granted to the extent the amendment merely amplified the allegations in the original notice. By contrast, the attempts to amend the notice by adding new theories of liability were properly denied. Plaintiff, a police officer, was a passenger in a police car driven by another officer, Lassen. Plaintiff sued Lassen for negligent operation of the police car and the city for negligent supervision and training:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add allegations relating to purported acts or omissions regarding Lassen’s operation of the police vehicle, including causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e asserted against the City defendants and predicated upon Lassen’s alleged violation of various provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law regulating the operation of motor vehicles … . These causes of action were based upon the same purported acts and omissions already set forth in the notice of claim … . Since Lassen’s alleged negligent and/or reckless operation of the police vehicle and the City’s concomitant negligence in failing to properly supervise and/or train Lassen were set forth in the notice of claim and the complaint, the new allegations effectively “amplif[ied]” the previously asserted allegations and did not constitute “new, distinct, and independent theories of liability” … . The fact that the proposed amended complaint alleged violations of statutory provisions not set forth in the notice of claim or original complaint, was not, standing alone, a basis to deny leave to amend … . Since the notice of claim “provided information . . . sufficient to alert the [defendants] to the potential [General Municipal Law § 205-e] cause[s] of action” predicated upon Lassen’s alleged failure to properly operate the police vehicle … , the court should not have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add those allegations on the ground that they were outside the existing notice of claim. Mitchell v Jimenez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to amplify allegations in the original notice should be granted. A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to add new theories of liability is properly denied.

 

, , ,

HERE AN OTHERWISE UNTIMELY COUNTERCLAIM WAS RENDERED TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 203(D) TO THE EXTENT IT SOUGHT EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim alleging professional malpractice was timely pursuant to CPLR 203(d) to the extent the counterclaim sought equitable recoupment, as opposed to affirmative relief:

Even crediting the court’s determination that this claim accrued on February 4, 2019, rendering time-barred the counterclaim alleging professional malpractice asserted on February 15, 2022, the defendants are permitted, pursuant to CPLR 203(d), to seek equitable recoupment in a counterclaim. CPLR 203(d) provides, “[a] defense or counterclaim is interposed when a pleading containing it is served. A defense or counterclaim is not barred if it was not barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed, except that if the defense or counterclaim arose from the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, upon which a claim asserted in the complaint depends, it is not barred to the extent of the demand in the complaint notwithstanding that it was barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed.” “This provision allows a defendant to assert an otherwise untimely claim which arose out of the same transactions alleged in the complaint, but only as a shield for recoupment purposes, and does not permit the defendant to obtain affirmative relief” … . Getzel Schiff & Pesce, LLP v Shtayner, 2024 NY Slip Op 06186, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: An otherwise untimely counterclaim which arises from a claim asserted in the complaint may be deemed timely pursuant to CPLR 2013(d) to the extent it seeks equitable recoupment as opposed to affirmative relief.​

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO RENDER THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine applied to render legal malpractice causes of action timely:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214[6]). “However, causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies” … . “For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . “[A] person [is not] expected to jeopardize his [or her] pending case or his [or her] relationship with the attorney handling that case during the period that the attorney continues to represent the person. Since it is impossible to envision a situation where commencing a malpractice suit would not affect the professional relationship, the rule of continuous representation tolls the running of the Statute of Limitations on the malpractice claim until the ongoing representation is completed” … . Dellwood Dev., Ltd. v Coffinas Law Firm, PLLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine applied to render the legal malpractice causes of action timely.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the support magistrate should not have applied Colorado law. Although the parties were divorced in Colorado, the parties and the children all reside in New York:

“The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act . . . , ‘adopted in New York as article 5-B of the Family Court Act, grants continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order to the state that issued the order'” … . “As relevant herein, the issuing state loses such jurisdiction where none of the parties or children continue to reside in that state” … . Here, it is undisputed that the parties and their children reside in New York and that the mother registered the Colorado support order in this state. Thus, the Family Court, Westchester County, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the proceeding … .

Further, Family Court Act § 580-613(b) provides that, in a modification proceeding brought pursuant to section 580-613(a), the court “shall apply . . . the procedural and substantive law of this state” … . Here, the Support Magistrate improperly applied Colorado law in calculating the father’s modified support obligation … . Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted the mother’s objections. Matter of O’Connor v Shaw, 2024 NY Slip Op 06046, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Here the parties were divorced in Colorado but they and their children reside in New York. New York has jurisdiction over the support proceedings. The Support Magistrate should not have applied Colorado law to the support calculation.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) for medical malpractice, as well as the motion for leave to renew based upon recently disclosed medical records, should have been granted:​

… [P]etitioner established a reasonable excuse for the delay, to wit, the serious medical condition of the infant, which required hospitalization of the infant after his birth, feeding through a feeding tube, and numerous medical appointments while the condition of the infant was being assessed … . Considering the overall circumstances, including the petitioner’s natural predisposition to be more concerned with the infant’s medical condition and the treatment those injuries required, rather than with commencing legal action during the prescribed time period, the delay in serving a late notice of claim should have been excused … . Further, in support of that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was for leave to renew the petition, the petitioner submitted her medical records and an expert’s affidavit, which established that NYCHHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim since the alleged malpractice was apparent from an independent review of the medical records … . The medical records were not submitted earlier because, although the petitioner sought her medical records in August 2022, she only received those records on December 22, 2022 … . Further, the medical records were voluminous.

Since the conduct at issue was fully documented in the medical records, the petitioner made an initial showing that NYCHHC was not prejudiced by the delay in serving the notice of claim … , and, in response, the NYCHHC made no showing of prejudice. ​​​​​Matter of Bergado v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06039, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Here the mother of the injured infant proffered an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) and demonstrated the NYCHHC had timely notice of the nature of the action and suffered no prejudice from the delay through the medical records.

Practice Point: The motion for leave to renew was properly based upon mother’s recent receipt of medicals records not previously provided.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge could not deny the motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition/complaint and then consider the merits and dismiss the petition/complaint before allowing the respondent to interpose an answer. In addition, the court did not have the authority to consider issues not addressed by the underlying administrative ruling. The action was brought by an owner of shares in a cooperative (petitioner) against the co-op board (respondent) which denied petitioner’s application to convert an office to a residential unit:

… Supreme Court erred by considering the merits of the petition/complaint and, in effect, denying the petition/complaint and dismissing the proceeding/action, after it denied the co-op’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, if a motion to dismiss the petition is denied, “the court shall permit the respondent to answer” … . Here, the court should not have decided the merits of the petition seeking relief under CPLR article 78, as the co-op had not yet filed an answer … , and it cannot be said, on this record, “that the facts are so fully presented in the parties’ papers that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” … .

Moreover, under all the circumstances, including that issue had not been joined and that branch of the co-op’s motion which pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint was not converted into a motion for summary judgment, there was no basis for the Supreme Court, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding/action after concluding that the co-op was not entitled to dismissal of the petition/complaint pursuant CPLR 3211(a) … .

Further, it has “long been the rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds presented by the agency at the time of its determination” … . A reviewing court is “powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, when the Supreme Court, in effect, affirmed the board’s denial of the application, the court improperly “surmise[d] or [*3]speculate[d] as to how or why” the board reached its determination and improperly relied on grounds not mentioned in the denial letter … . Matter of 195 N. Vil. Ave., LLC v 195 Apts., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Once a judge denies a motion to dismiss a petition/complaint, the merits of the petition/complaint should not be considered before the respondent interposes an answer.

Practice Point: A judge reviewing an administrative ruling cannot decide the merits on grounds not addressed by the administrative ruling.

 

,

CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on “neglect to proceed” grounds after plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 90-day notice:

“CPLR 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute which never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates “a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “Thus, even when all of the statutory preconditions are met, including plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 90-day requirement, plaintiff has yet another opportunity to salvage the action simply by opposing the motion to dismiss with a justifiable excuse” and proof of a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ belief that the action remained stayed in the absence of some affirmative act by the Supreme Court, although erroneous, constituted a justifiable excuse under the circumstances for their failure to respond to the defendant’s 90-day notice. Notably, the 90-day notice was sent only three months after the stay had been lifted, and the record does not otherwise contain evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect or delay in prosecuting the action or an intent to abandon the action … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action sounding in strict products liability … . Holness v Gigglesworld Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06031, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: CPLR 3216 is a forgiving statute which allows but does not require the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a 90-day notice. Here plaintiffs presented an adequate excuse and demonstrated a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of defendant corporation (Tatiana Batin) and the corporation (Godess … Spa …) were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action alleging an employee of defendant corporation sexually abused plaintiff during a massage:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Batin was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The hearing evidence established that the address at which Batin was purportedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was neither her actual dwelling place nor her usual place of abode as of the purported date of service … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “‘[e]ven if a defendant eventually acquires actual notice of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with prescribed conditions of service'” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goddess was properly served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), which required delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or . . . any other agent authorized . . . to receive service.” “Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that Batin had been properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), substituted service upon her pursuant to CPLR 308(2) would be insufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over Goddess, as CPLR 311(a)(1) requires personal service directly upon a corporate representative … . Flatow v Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06029, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: At the hearing plaintiff did not prove defendant owner of defendant corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint by substitute service.

Practice Point: Personal jurisdiction over a corporation cannot be acquired by substitute service.

 

, , ,

THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a plaintiff is not required to serve a notice of claim for a tort action against a charter school. Here the infant plaintiff was injured on the playground of a charter school (Evergreen) and Supreme Court dismissed the case because no notice of claim had been served on the school:

… [A]s explained in this Court’s recent opinion and order in A.P. v John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter Sch. (228 AD3d 138), Education Law § 3813(2) and General Municipal Law § 50-e do not require service of a notice of claim prior to commencement of a tort action against a charter school … . Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Evergreen based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to serve Evergreen with a notice of claim … . L.R. v Evergreen Charter Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 05998, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff bringing a tort action against a charter school is not required to serve a notice of claim.

 

,

A COURT’S POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONMOVING PARTY IS LIMITED TO THE CAUSES OF ACTION OR ISSUES IN THE MOTIONS BEFORE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court’s power to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party is constrained by the causes of action or issues raised in the motions before it:

Although the court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the “power to search the record and afford a nonmoving party summary relief is not . . . boundless” … . Thus, “a court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Here, the court improperly considered an issue that was not the subject of the motion before it … . Mejia v 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A court cannot search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or an issue not raised in the motions before it.​

 

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