You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's toxic tort action on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff alleged injury caused by mold in a building owned by defendant:

… [D]efendant was required to show, at a minimum, that plaintiff's alleged exposure to a toxic substance did not occur within three years of the commencement of the action … . If defendant exposed or continued to expose plaintiff to a toxic substance within three years of the commencement of the action, plaintiff could not have discovered any resulting injuries from such exposure at a time that would be barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Given that a plaintiff cannot discover the injurious effects of exposure to a toxic substance prior to that exposure occurring, and considering defendant's concession that plaintiff continued to be exposed to the mold at a time less than three years prior to the commencement of the action, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.

Turning to the allegedly injurious exposure taking place more than three years prior to the commencement of the action, we find that defendant did not prove as a matter of law that plaintiff should have discovered his allergy and asthma conditions at a time that is barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Although plaintiff exhibited some symptoms, including skin and eye irritation and tightness in the throat, in the spring and summer of 2002, plaintiff also explained that such symptoms ceased when he would leave the building at the end of his shifts. Further, plaintiff averred that he did not seek medical treatment for these symptoms, miss work as a result of the symptoms or file a workers' compensation claim until late October 2002. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the symptoms that plaintiff exhibited more than three years prior to the commencement of the action were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2) … . Malone v Court W. Developers, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03571, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/TOXIC TORTS (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)

,

COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly refused to approve a settlement in a class action challenging a corporate merger because there was no opt-out provision for out-of-state shareholders. Because the suit included claims for damages, effectively prohibiting out-of-state shareholders from bringing actions in other jurisdictions would deprive them of a property right:

While the complaint seeks predominately equitable relief, the settlement would also release any damage claims relating to the merger by out-of-state class members. The broad release encompassed in the agreement bars the right of those class members to pursue claims not equitable in nature, which … are constitutionally protected property rights. Jiannaras v Alfant, 2016 NY Slip Op 03548, CtApp 5-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CLASS ACTIONS (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant American Christmas did not owe a duty to plaintiff in this trip and fall case. American Christmas contracted with a shopping mall to install Christmas displays. After the installation contract was completed, plaintiff allegedly tripped over electrical wires taped to the floor. There was evidence American Christmas put up stanchions to prevent people from crossing over the cords. Plaintiff alleged American Christmas was liable in tort arising from the contract with the mall because it launched an instrument of harm. The court noted that because plaintiff only alleged one of the three possible criteria for liability to third persons arising from a contract, the defendant was only required to address that single theory in its motion for summary judgment:

Here, American Christmas demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering proof that the plaintiff was not a party to its holiday display contracts with the Mall Owner, and that it thus owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. American Christmas also established, prima facie, that the one Espinal exception alleged by the plaintiff that would give rise to a duty of care does not apply in this case (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 141-142). …

Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not allege facts that would establish the possible applicability of the second or third [Espinal] exception, American Christmas was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Parrinello v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03481, 2nd Dept 3-4-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

,

CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER ALLEGING EMPLOYEES WERE ROUTINELY UNDERPAID ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.

The First Department determined plaintiffs, former and current non-managerial employees of defendant Jenny Craig (weight-loss centers), established commonality (CPLR 901(a)(2)) such that their class action suit could proceed. 751 class members alleged they were regularly underpaid because 30 minutes of pay was routinely deducted for breaks which the employees did not take:

Where, as here, “the same types of subterfuge [were] allegedly employed to pay lower wages,” commonality of the claims will be found to predominate, even though the putative class members have “different levels of damages” … . Class action is an appropriate method of adjudicating wage claims arising from an employer's alleged practice of underpaying employees, given that “the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court … . Weinstein v Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02932, 1st Dept 4-19-16


, ,

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed the pleadings to be amended to conform to the evidence at trial. The trial evidence indicated the contract at issue was based upon mutual mistake rather than deliberate misrepresentation. The motion to amend the pleadings to allege mutual mistake was properly granted and the contract was properly rescinded on that ground:

 

The burden was upon defendant, as the party opposing plaintiff's motion, to establish that it was “hindered in the preparation of [its] case or . . . prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] 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” .. . Here, the proof upon which plaintiff's motion was based was the testimony of defendant's president that she acted mistakenly in providing the wrong sales figures … . Given this testimony, defendant cannot have been surprised or unduly prejudiced by plaintiff's assertion of the theory of mutual mistake; thus, leave to conform the pleadings to the proof was properly granted … . Lakshmi Grocery & Gas, Inc. v GRJH, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02891, 3rd Dept 4-14-16


, ,

TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE VERDICT IN MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court, reinstated plaintiff's malicious prosecution, 42 USC 1983, punitive damages and attorneys' fees claims. The claims had been dismissed pursuant to defendants' motion to set aside the $4 million jury verdict. Plaintiff had been injured during an arrest which took place just outside plaintiff's residence after he was approached by two police officers, ostensibly for his holding an open can of beer. Plaintiff was ultimately charged only with disorderly conduct which was dismissed at trial at the close of the People's case. The opinion includes an in-depth discussion of the elements of malicious prosecution, including the distinct “lack of probable cause to arrest” and “malice” elements. The court noted that the trial court improperly substituted its own factual judgments for the jury's. The court explained:

The actual malice element “does not require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant was motivated by spite or hatred, although it will of course be satisfied by such proof” … . Since “[a]ctual malice is seldom established by direct evidence of an ulterior motive” … , it “may be proven by circumstantial evidence” … , and depends “upon inferences to be reasonably drawn from the surrounding facts and circumstances” … . Actual malice may also be inferred from a total lack of probable cause … or from defendant's intentionally providing false information to law enforcement authorities … . It is important to note that the lack of probable cause and actual malice elements are independent, and “a jury may, but is not required to, infer the existence of actual malice from the fact that there was no probable cause to initiate the proceeding” … . As a result, it is advisable to separate the questions of probable cause and malice on a verdict sheet … . Here, however, while there was only one question, the trial court did charge the jury on both the elements of probable cause and malice, and instructed the jury that only if they found that “plaintiff [] prove[d] both that the defendants did not have probable cause and that they acted maliciously” (emphasis added) should they move on to consider damages, which they did.

Based on the foregoing, and contrary to the trial court's finding, the jury's verdict on malicious prosecution was improperly set aside as insufficient as a matter of law. It cannot be said that there was no valid line of reasoning that could possibly have led rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial. Moreover, the court impermissibly usurped the jury's role and made factual determinations. The court's statement that the plaintiff “refus[ed] to submit to the authority of the police” is a clear example of the court substituting its judgment for that of the jury. When the facts give rise to conflicting inferences, as they do here, it is for the jury, not the court, to resolve those conflicts. Cardoza v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02766, 1st Dept 4-12-16


,

DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.

The First Department determined defendant's pleadings were properly struck because defendant destroyed emails relevant to plaintiff's defamation action:

Defendant undertook an affirmative course of action resulting in destruction of relevant emails, though she represented otherwise during sworn testimony. As the documents received from third-party recipients confirm, the files defendant destroyed are highly relevant and tend to substantiate plaintiffs' claims. Evidence of defendant's willful and prejudicial destruction of evidence warrants the sanction of striking her pleadings … . Where a party disposes of evidence without moving for a protective order, a negative inference may be drawn that the destruction was willful … . Willfulness may also be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery directives … . It should also be noted that this Court has upheld the striking of pleadings where the destruction of critical evidence occurs through ordinary negligence … . Chan v Cheung, 2016 NY Slip Op 02731, 1st Dept 4-12-16


,

MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WITNESS-CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE.

The First Department, over a partial dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined neither plaintiff nor defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this contract dispute. Defendant, KLT, represented a concert artist, Akon, who cancelled a performance, allegedly due to illness. The question was whether, under the terms of the contract, plaintiff was entitled to its money back. KLT moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “force majeure” clause applied and plaintiff was not entitled to relief. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment alleging breach of contract. The court found that KLT's proof of Akon's illness was insufficient and summary judgment was properly denied for that reason. The court went on to find Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff's cross-motion because plaintiff did not demonstrate illness was not the reason for the cancellation of the concert. The decision presents another example of how appellate courts analyze summary judgment motions. Plaintiff could not rely on the gaps in KLT's proof of illness. Rather plaintiff was required to affirmatively prove illness was not the reason for the cancellation. The court further noted that witness-credibility cannot be taken into account at the summary judgment stage (the dissent argued Akon's testimony about illness was not to be believed):

… [P]laintiff, in its cross motion for summary judgment, was required to establish that Akon was able to perform at the concert and was not unable to do so due to sickness. Instead, plaintiff merely pointed to gaps in KLT's evidence — the missing medical records that would have proven Akon was ill, and thus its cross motion was improperly granted … .

The dissent merely points to additional gaps in KLT's evidence, such as proof of travel arrangements to demonstrate Akon intended to travel to Brussels [to perform the concert], and notes the limited value of the affidavit of Akon's surgeon. However, these gaps do not equate to plaintiff meeting its burden to establish an absence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether Akon was ill. Plaintiff acknowledges that it lacks any documentary evidence refuting that Akon was unable to perform, and has no evidence that he was physically capable of performing. The dissent, like the Supreme Court, appears to completely dismiss the value of Akon's deposition testimony, yet it is “not the court's function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” … . Belgium v Mateo Prods., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02730, 1st Dept, 4-12-16


, ,

THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO A MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court’s order, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a foreclosure proceeding. Defendant alleged plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, did not have standing to bring the action (i.e., did not have possession of the note at the time the action was commenced). Aurora Loan Services was unable to demonstrate standing because the evidence submitted did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Aurora’s summary judgment motion was therefore properly denied. However, the flaws in Aurora’s proof of standing did not entitle defendant to summary judgment on defendant’s cross motion. In the summary judgment context, the court first looks only at the moving party’s papers to determine whether the moving party has made a prima facie showing justifying summary judgment. Here the defendant’s papers did not demonstrate Aurora lacked standing. Therefore the cross motion should have been denied, notwithstanding the flaws in the plaintiff’s opposing papers.

… Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing and to cancel the notice of pendency filed against the subject property. “[T]he burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied. To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” … . Here, the defendant, as the moving party, failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff lacked standing … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 2016 NY Slip Op 02599, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

FORECLOSURE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, FORECLOSURE, FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, FORECLOSURE, FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

, ,

ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.

The Second Department determined the statute of limitations re: a default on a note secured by a mortgage was renewed when defendant (Raudkivi) acknowledged the debt in his bankruptcy plan. The statute therefore began to run when defendant was granted a discharge in bankruptcy, which occurred less than six years before suit was brought:

Raudkivi’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, in which he acknowledged the mortgage debt and promised to repay it, renewed the limitations period (see General Obligations Law § 17-105[1]…). The automatic bankruptcy stay, which was in effect when Raudkivi executed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, tolled the renewed limitations period (see CPLR 204[a]…), so the renewed limitations period did not begin to run until Raudkivi was granted his discharge in bankruptcy in October of 2006 (see 11 USC § 362[c][2][C]). Since this action was commenced less than six years later, in July of 2012, this action is not time-barred. PSP-NC, LLC v Raudkivi, 2016 NY Slip Op 02632, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/BANKRUPTCY (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)

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