You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint by adding named police officers (previously listed in the complaint as John or Jane Doe) as defendants was properly denied. The statute of limitations for civil rights violation under 18 USC 1983 had passed. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued the relation-back doctrine applied because there was a unity of interest between the city defendant and the named police officers:

Plaintiffs argue that Officers Crocitto and Palmerini are united in interest with the City of New York, one of the original defendants, because the officers are employees of the City. It is undisputed, however, that the City cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983. Rather, the City can be held liable under 42 USC § 1983 only for violating that statute through an unconstitutional official policy or custom … . Thus, it simply cannot be said that the fortunes in this action of the City and of either Officer Crocitto or Officer Palmerini “stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Because the City has no vicarious liability for Officers Crocitto’s and Palmerini’s alleged misconduct under 42 USC § 1983, the two officers are not united in interest with the City with respect to the federal false arrest and excessive force claims against them, and the interposition of those claims against the officers does not relate back to the commencement of the action against the City for purposes of the statute of limitations. Higgins v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07748, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/CIVIL RIGHTS (18 USC 1983) (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/POLICE OFFICERS (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)

,

WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Family Court Act time-limit for objecting to a support order begins to run when the party’s counsel, not the party, is notified of the order. Here the party was notified of the order by mail, but counsel was not. The objections to the order were filed more than 35 days after the order was mailed to the party and were rejected on that ground. The Court of Appeals held that, even if a statutory time-limit for service is silent about the issue, where a party is represented by counsel, the time-limit does not start to run until counsel is notified:

“[O]nce a party chooses to be represented by counsel in an action or proceeding, whether administrative or judicial, the attorney is deemed to act as his agent in all respects relevant to the proceeding. Thus any documents, particularly those purporting to have legal effect on the proceeding, should be served on the attorney the party has chosen to handle the matter on his behalf” (Bianca, 43 NY2d at 173). Indeed, “[t]his is not simply a matter of courtesy and fairness; it is the traditional and accepted practice which has been all but universally codified” (id.). In particular, as the Court noted, CPLR 2103 (b) provides that “[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers to be served upon a party in a pending action shall be served upon the party’s attorney.”

Bianca governs here. The reference to the mailing of the order to a “party or parties” in Family Court Act § 439 (e) must be read to require that the order be mailed to the party’s counsel, in order for the statutory time requirement to commence. Matter of Odunbaku v Odunbaku, 2016 NY Slip Op 07705, CtApp 11-17-16

 

FAMILY LAW (WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY COURT ACT, WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER)

,

MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS, UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Although the specific Industrial Code regulation relied upon by plaintiff was not identified in the pleadings no prejudice resulted from any delay in identifying it. Plaintiff’s thumb was severed using a makeshift table saw consisting of a circular saw attached to the bottom of a table. Supreme Court held the Industrial Code regulation requiring a guard on a table saw did not apply to a portable saw. However, the portable saw was being used as a table saw, thus the regulation applied. The Second Department also noted that an otherwise untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment should be considered if the issues raised are identical to a timely summary judgment motion made by another party. Here portions of the untimely motion were identical to the timely motion, but other portions were not. The identical portions should have been considered:

12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2) requires that “[e]very power-driven saw, other than a portable saw, . . . be equipped with a guard which covers the saw blade to such an extent as will prevent contact with the teeth.” The Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that this provision was inapplicable to the facts of this case because it applies to table saws, not portable saws. “[W]hen determining the applicability of a regulation,” the court must “take into consideration the function of a piece of equipment, and not merely the name” … . The circular saw at issue was being used as a table saw at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, and, thus, the same safety precautions as are required for other power-driven table saws are applicable … . Accordingly, the branch of [defendant’s] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against him should have been denied. …

Although [defendant’s] cross motion was untimely, an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds … . The branch of [defendant’s] cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it was not made on grounds nearly identical to the similar branch of [the] timely motion, since it rested on the separate factual assertion that it did not exercise supervisory control over the work. Sheng Hai Tong v K & K 7619, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR (UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED)/TABLE SAWS (LABOR LAW, MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS)

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.

Under the unique facts, the Second Department determined Family Court should not have applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prohibit Omar from contesting paternity. Omar had signed an acknowledgment of paternity two days after the child was born. However, twice thereafter Omar filed petitions to vacate his acknowledgment supported by DNA tests:

Family Court should have declined to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel. ” Collateral estoppel, an equitable doctrine, is based upon the general notion that a party, or one in privity with a party, should not be permitted to relitigate an issue decided against it'” … . “[W]hether to apply collateral estoppel in a particular case depends upon general notions of fairness involving a practical inquiry into the realities of the litigation'” … . The doctrine is highly flexible in nature, and should not be rigidly or mechanically applied, even where its technical requirements are met … . “[T]he fundamental inquiry is whether relitigation should be permitted in a particular case in light of what are often competing policy considerations, including fairness to the parties, conservation of the resources of the court and the litigants, and the societal interests in consistent and accurate results. No rigid rules are possible, because even these factors may vary in relative importance depending on the nature of the proceedings” … .

Here, the nature of the proceedings is highly relevant, as it involves the determination of the paternity of a child not yet seven years of age. Although Omar executed an acknowledgment of paternity two days after the subject child’s birth in November 2009, he obtained, in 2011, a private DNA test indicating that he could not be the father. In 2013, the mother consented to the vacatur of the acknowledgment of paternity based upon the results of a second DNA test. Moreover, at a 2014 court appearance, the mother advised the Support Magistrate, in contrast to statements she made in connection with Omar’s first petition, that she was involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with Britton at the time of the child’s conception. Under these circumstances, there is potential merit to Omar’s second petition … . It is also significant to note that neither Omar nor the mother was represented by counsel in connection with Omar’s first petition … , and that Omar was still unrepresented when the Support Magistrate instructed him to file a second petition after he unsuccessfully attempted to restore the first petition.

Taking into consideration the particular facts of this case, we are persuaded that application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel would not promote fairness to the parties. Matter of Kaori (Omar J.–Shalette S.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07649, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

FAMILY LAW (PATERNITY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY)

,

CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED.

The Second Department determined a shortened statute of limitations agreed to in a stock purchase contract was properly enforced. Plaintiff discovered that defendant had not paid the full purchase price for the stock, and brought a breach of contract action after the contractual statute of limitations had expired:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . To be enforceable, such provision must be clear and unambiguous … . “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” … . ” Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the plain language of the provision limiting the time period to bring an “action based on any warranty, covenant or representation contained in this Agreement” is clear and unambiguous, and applies to the defendant’s covenant to pay … . This interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the contract and basic principles of contract construction that an interpretation which renders language in the contract superfluous cannot be supported … . Batales v Friedman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07615, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED)

,

FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND.

The Second Department determined failure to file proof of service of a petition and notice of petition should not have resulted in the denial of the petition. The motion court raised the ground for denial itself. Rather than denying the petition, the motion court should have alerted the parties to the defect and allowed it to be cured:

“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 pursuant to CPLR 2004” … . Here, there is no dispute that the respondents were served with the notice of petition and petition, as they moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action. At no time did they argue that the proceeding should be dismissed for failure to file proof of service. As such, the parties did not have an opportunity to address the purported failure to file proof of service, the ground upon which the Supreme Court relied in denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding, even though such defect is readily curable (see CPLR 2001, 2004). “The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have alerted the parties to the purported defect and afforded the appellant an opportunity to correct it, rather than denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding… . Matter of Meighan v Ponte, 2016 NY Slip Op 07653, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND)/SERVICE, PROOF OF (FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND)

COURT PROPERLY AWARDED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR AS A MATTER OF LAW UPON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly determined a declaratory judgment action in defendant’s favor as a matter of law in the context of defendant’s motion to dismiss:

A motion to dismiss a cause of action for declaratory relief generally “presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration” … . However, “where the court, deeming the material allegations of the complaint to be true, is nonetheless able to determine, as a matter of law, that the defendant is entitled to a declaration in his or her favor, the court may enter a judgment making the appropriate declaration” … . Here, deeming the material allegations of the complaint to be true and considering the documents that were attached to and made part of the complaint (see CPLR 3014), including the stipulation of settlement, the Supreme Court properly determined, as a matter of law, that defendant was entitled to a declaration in her favor … . Pilgrim v Pantorilla, 2016 NY Slip Op 07634, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT PROPERLY AWARDED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR AS A MATTER OF LAW UPON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COURT PROPERLY AWARDED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR AS A MATTER OF LAW UPON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS)

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The Second Department determined: (1) a motion for summary judgment should not have been denied based upon a ground not raised by any party in opposition; (2) a motion for summary judgment should not have been denied based on the failure to attach all of the parties’ pleadings to the motion papers; and (3) a motion should not have been denied because it was directed at an amended complaint which was never served, rather than the original complaint:

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the … defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them due to their failure to provide all of the pleadings, as required by CPLR 3212(b). In this regard, the … defendants submitted the complaint and their answer, but did not submit the answers of the other defendants. The … plaintiffs, in opposition, did not contend that this branch of the … defendants’ motion should be denied due to the … defendants’ failure to fully comply with CPLR 3212(b). Consequently, the court should not have raised the issue on the … plaintiffs’ behalf … . Moreover, under the circumstances, the … defendants’ failure to submit the answers of the other defendants was a mere irregularity and, since no substantial right of any party was prejudiced, the court should have disregarded that defect and reached the merits of that branch of the … defendants’ motion … .

… [T]he court should have disregarded the error … in moving against the amended complaint instead of the original complaint, since it did not affect the merits or prejudice a substantial right of the … plaintiffs … . Mew Equity, LLC v Sutton Land Servs., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07630, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED)

, , ,

ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE ACTION, ORIGINAL PETITION, WHICH DID NOT NAME ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

The Third Department determined all “rezoned” property-owners, deemed “necessary parties” by Supreme Court in this action to annul a local law rezoning property for industrial use. were, in fact, not “necessary parties.” The petition, which had been dismissed for failure to timely serve the newly-added “necessary parties,” was reinstated. The local law, which would allow a recycling center in a previously residential-agricultural zone, was challenged based upon an alleged failure to comply with the State Environment Quality Review Act:

The newly-added respondents were not necessary parties merely because the ordinance at issue affected their property rights. “‘[T]he absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion'” (Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 130 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2015], quoting Matter of Estate of Prospect v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 13 AD3d 699, 700 [2004]). Given a court’s power to raise the issue, it is notable that the Court of Appeals and this state’s appellate courts, including this Court, have long entertained challenges to municipalities’ legislative actions in regard to zoning ordinances without requiring the joinder of every property owner whose rights are affected by the ordinance at issue … . ]). This has been true even when the ordinance at issue is one that, on its face, is likely to dramatically affect the property rights held by real property owners (see e.g. Matter of Wallach v Town of Dryden, 23 NY3d 728, 740 [2014]). Although this Court has, in limited cases, found property owners to be necessary parties in regard to legal challenges to municipal ordinances that affect the property owners’ rights, it has only done so in cases where the owners had obtained an actual approval pursuant to the challenged zoning ordinance that would be adversely impacted by a judgment annulling that ordinance … . Matter of Hudson Riv. Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v Town Bd. of The Town of Coeymans, 2016 NY Slip Op 07358, 3rd Dept 11-10-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE ACTION, ORIGINAL PETITION, WHICH DID NOT NAME ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/ZONING (ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE ACTION, ORIGINAL PETITION, WHICH DID NOT NAME ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE ACTION, ORIGINAL PETITION, WHICH DID NOT NAME ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES IN THE ACTION, ORIGINAL PETITION, WHICH DID NOT NAME ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, ALLOWED TO PROCEED)

, ,

FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS.

The Fourth Department determined father, who was incarcerated in Michigan, was afforded due process in the proceedings in which his petition for visitation was denied. However, the court noted that Family Court did not have the power, under the circumstances, to prohibit any further petitions by father:

… [W]e agree with the father that the court erred in sua sponte imposing conditions restricting him from filing new petitions. It is well settled that “[p]ublic policy mandates free access to the courts” … , but ” a party may forfeit that right if she or he abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will’ ” … . Here, however, there is no basis in the record from which to conclude that the father had engaged in meritless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, or that he had otherwise abused the judicial process … . Matter of Otrosinka v Hageman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07553, 4th Dept 11-10-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS)

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