You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM, DOCCS CANNOT CONSIDER THE ORDER TO BE MERELY A RECOMMENDATION WHICH CAN BE IGNORED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the discretion to treat Supreme Court’s order to enroll petitioner in the shock probation program as a recommendation which need not be implemented. Although the petitioner had been released from incarceration, the Third Department considered the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]hen applying the literal language of Penal Law § 60.04 (7) (a) and Correction Law § 865 (1), the most rational interpretation of the statutes is that, when the same sentencing judge imposes concurrent sentences on convictions for an eligible drug offense and another non-enumerated offense, the sentencing judge’s directive to enroll an eligible incarcerated individual into the shock incarceration program upon the conviction for the qualifying drug offense is binding on DOCCS, so long as the conviction on the additional non-drug offense is not one of the disqualifying offenses listed in Correction Law § 865 (1). Matter of Adams v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 04542, Third Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Absent a statutory exception, DOCCS must implement a sentencing judge’s order to enroll defendant in the shock probation program.

 

, ,

STATUTORY PENALTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN CLASS ACTIONS UNLESS THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES RECOVERY IN A CLASS ACTION, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the class action plaintiffs were not entitled to class certification for the causes of action seeking statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees for failure to provide wage notices and statements in violation of Labor Law section 195 (1) and (3):

CPLR 901(b) provides that, “[u]nless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action.” The Labor Law provides for statutory penalties for violations of Labor Law § 195(1) and (3) (see id. §§ 198[1-b], [1-d] …). Inasmuch as Labor Law § 198(1-b) and § 198(1-d) do not specifically authorize recovery as part of a class action, the court should not have granted certification with respect to those issues … Maylou v Mittal, 2026 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 7-22-26

Practice Point: Here the class action plaintiffs sought recovery of statutory penalties. The statutory penalties could not be recovered in a class action because the statute did not explicitly so provide.

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING WHERE THE AUTHORIZED ADOPTION AGENCY WITHDREW ITS CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT ASKED THE LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS THIS STATUTORY PROBLEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, was constrained to find that the court did not have jurisdiction to conduct a “best interests of the child” hearing where the authorized adoption agency withdrew its consent to the adoption. The Second Department explained that the current statutory scheme places an authorized adoption agency in the role typically performed by Family Court and requested that the Legislature address the problem:

The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a court reviewing an adoption proceeding has jurisdiction to entertain a hearing to determine the best interests of a child where an authorized agency with custody of the child has withdrawn or withheld its consent to the adoption petition. We are constrained by the statutory scheme for adoptions from an authorized agency to answer that question in the negative. However, the circumstances underlying this proceeding highlight the potential conflict between the governing statutory law and the paramount concerns of the best interests of the child and achieving permanency. We therefore take this occasion to ask the New York State Legislature to consider whether changes are needed to ensure the best interests of children placed in the custody of authorized agencies for the purpose of adoption. * * *

… [B]efore a best interests hearing was conducted, the proposed adoptive father withdrew the adoption petition insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he was no longer seeking to jointly adopt the child with the appellant. The proposed adoptive father’s withdrawal of the joint adoption petition insofar as asserted by him was precipitated by the biological parents’ decision to support adoption of the child by the proposed adoptive father alone.

,,, [T]he agency withdrew its consent to the joint adoption of the child by the proposed adoptive parents on the ground that the proposed adoptive father “is no longer petitioning the Court to adopt jointly with [the appellant].” The agency then moved to dismiss the adoption petition on the ground that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the adoption petition due to the agency’s withdrawal of its consent to the joint adoption. In support of the motion, the agency argued that dismissal of the adoption petition was mandated, without a best interests hearing, since the agency had lawful custody of the child and, therefore, its consent to the adoption was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111. Matter of Aurora A. (Leigh A.–Giuseppe A.), 2026 NY Slip Op 04500, Second Dept 7-22-26

 

, ,

A POLICE REPORT INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS “HIGHLY INTOXICATED” AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, affirmed County Court’s ruling that a police report which indicated defendant was “highly intoxicated” was not admissible as a business record. Defendant sought to use the report as a basis for his expert’s testimony (presumably to the effect that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the shooting):

It is uncontested that the drafter of the report, a lieutenant with the State Police, did not observe the events described therein or, more specifically, defendant’s level of intoxication that night. The inquiry thus distills to whether defendant, as the proponent of the report, sufficiently demonstrated that the source of the statement that he was “highly intoxicated” was an individual with a duty to report such information. We find that defendant failed to meet this burden. The hearing testimony demonstrated that the lieutenant drafted the report based upon information received from numerous sources. However, he was unable to identify who had reported defendant to be highly intoxicated. Defendant’s argument that, because the scene had been secured, the statement must have come from a responding officer’s personal observations is entirely speculative, as nothing in the language of the report itself or the record confirms that an officer was the source of the statement. It is possible that the clause was included based upon defendant’s fiance’s description of defendant as “drunk as a skunk” when making a 911 call that evening. She, as opposed to responding law enforcement, had no business duty to report … . Because defendant did not meet this foundational requirement by demonstrating that “the initial declarant was] acting within the course of regular business conduct,” he failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the report, as well as the specific statement at issue, pursuant to the business records exception … . People v Mawhiney, 2026 NY Slip Op 04460, Third Dept 7-16-26

Practice Point: Here defendant unsuccessfully sought to have a police report which indicated he was highly intoxicated at the time of the shooting admitted as a business record. The criteria for admission as a business record are explained in depth.

 

, ,

A DISCOVERY RULE ENACTED IN 2018 REACHED BACK TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE RULE WAS ENACTED TO RENDER TIMELY THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice cause of action alleging the negligent failure to diagnose cancer was rendered timely by a discovery rule which reaches back ten months before the discovery rule was enacted:

The causes of action arising from negligent failure to diagnose cancer accrued on October 23, 2014, when the defendants failed to advise [plaintiff] to submit to additional testing, such as a mammogram. However, the 2018 enactment also includes a provision providing for the revival of certain causes of action, such that an action may be commenced within six months after the effective date, i.e., by July 31, 2018, when it alleges a failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor, and when it became time-barred within 10 months prior to the effective date of the statute—January 31, 2018, that is, on or after March 31, 2017 (see L 2018, ch 1, § 4…). Here, the causes of action qualify for revival pursuant to that provision, as they became time-barred in April 2017, within the 10-month period prior to the act’s effective date, and this action was commenced on June 11, 2018, prior to the July 31, 2018 deadline … . Rhodes v Dilena, 2026 NY Slip Op 04444, Second Dept 7-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the application of the discovery rule enacted in 2018 providing for the revival of a medical malpractice action alleging negligent failure to diagnose cancer after the statute of limitations expired.

 

, ,

THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION; NEITHER MOTHER NOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND (WHO DID NOT APPEAR) CONSENTED TO THE REFEREE’S HEARING THE MATTER; THE POWERS OF A REFEREE ARE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversal the order by the referee dismissing the family offense proceeding, determined the referee was without jurisdiction to decide the matter because neither mother nor respondent husband (who did not appear) consented the referee hearing the matter:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances” … . “Absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the . . . [r]eferee ha[s] the power only to hear and report [their] findings” … . An appropriate order of reference is thus an “essential jurisdictional predicate” to the authority of the referee to act … , and a referee “who attempts to determine matters not referred to [them] by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of [their] jurisdiction” … .

Here, as noted, petitioner never consented to the Referee hearing the matter. Although CPLR 4317 (b) permits a referee to hear and determine an issue without the consent of the parties where the trial of the issue “will require the examination of a long account,” where the issue is one “of damages separately triable and not requiring a trial by jury,” or “where otherwise authorized by law,” none of those exceptions to the consent requirement applies here. Thus, the Referee “lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition” … , even without prejudice. We note in any event that, absent a fact-finding hearing, which did not take place, the Referee had no grounds to dismiss the petition based on insufficient evidence. Matter of Fournier v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04063, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the powers of a Family Court referee.

 

, , ,

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PERSONAL-SERVICE-OF-A-CLAIM REQUIREMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE STATE’S APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY; HERE SERVICE BY REGULAR FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS NOT A JURIDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in the property-appropriation-by-the-state action, determined an exception to the usual service requirements applies. Failure to serve the State with a copy of the claim by personal service or by certified mail is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore the State’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The claimants served the claim upon the Office of the Attorney General by regular first-class mail. * * *

… [W]here the claim sought only to recover damages for the State’s appropriation of the claimants’ property, service upon the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail was not required … .

Court of Claims Act § 10 reflects a similar unique exception for appropriation claims. While most types of claims must be both “filed and served upon the attorney general” to be properly commenced within the time prescribed by the statute … , a “claim for the appropriation by the state of lands” does not require service upon the Attorney General within the statutory time limit … . Port Grove Assoc. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03990, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed discussion of the service requirements for a Court of Claims action seeking damages for the State’s appropriation of claimant’s property. Failure to effect personal service on the Attorney General is not a jurisdictional defect.

 

, , , ,

HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE FOR THIS PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined that the trial judge’s preclusion of evidence based upon the district attorney’s untimely production of discovery was not subject to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the then district attorney:

Granting prohibition here would constitute improper collateral interlocutory review. This point is underscored by the Legislature’s amendment of CPL 450.20 to permit the People to appeal as of right from the portion of an order dismissing an accusatory instrument or some of its counts pursuant to CPL 245.80(2). In enacting this amendment, the Legislature chose to limit the types of appeals available to the People and did not permit the People to appeal from orders granting other remedies or sanctions under CPL 245.80(2), including orders precluding evidence, regardless of whether such orders would prevent the People from prosecuting a case. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, “nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition”  … .

Since a writ of prohibition does not lie, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the enforcement of the order of preclusion.  Matter of Rocah v McCarthy, 2026 NY Slip Op 03967, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A writ of prohibition does not lie to prohibit the enforcement of an order precluding evidence becasue the production of discovery by the People was deemed untimely.

 

, ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IF THE WORK IS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE EXCAVATION WORK WAS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court., determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint by adding independent contractors hired in connection with excavation work on adjacent property should have been granted. The excavation work caused plaintiff’s building to collapse. The statute of limitations for the negligence causes of action had run. A defendant can be vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors if the work is “inherently dangerous.” Because this work was “inherently dangerous,” the defendants and the independent contractors are “united in interest” such that the relation-back doctrine applies:

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the second prong of the relation-back test with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence, as the plaintiff established that the proposed defendants and the original defendants were united in interest as to those causes of action. “As a general rule, ‘a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . However, this general rule is subject to various exceptions, including where the work performed is inherently dangerous … . In this case, the amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that the work being performed was inherently dangerous and, thus, the original defendants could be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the proposed defendants … . Further, the plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the relation-back test, as the plaintiff demonstrated that the proposed defendants knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against them as well … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the amended complaint to add the proposed defendants as defendants with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence … . Crossbay Assoc., LLC v Singh, 2026 NY Slip Op 03941, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A party can be vicariously liable for the work done by an independent contractor if the work is “inherently dangerous.” The excavation work at issue in this case was deemed inherently dangerous.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUA SPONTE, AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE PHRASE IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REQUESTING “SUCH OTHER RELIEF” AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a default judgment against defendant Molina in this foreclosure action. There were two defendants, Pena and Molina. Pena answered the complaint but Molina did not. The notice of motion seeking summary judgment did not mention Molina. Therefore the judge should not have granted relief not demanded by the plaintiff:

“Among the statutory requirements [set forth in CPLR 2214(a) and (b)] is that notices of motion set forth ‘the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.’ The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders a resulting order void” … . In other words, “[a] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief against a defaulting party where that relief is not requested in the moving papers” … .

Here, since the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against Molina, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted that relief … . As the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief … , so much of the order … , as, sua sponte, granted leave to enter a default judgment against Molina was rendered void … , “‘warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … . As to the court’s reliance on the language in the notice of motion seeking “such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” this Court has explicitly held that courts may not “rely upon general relief clauses in noticed motions—’for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper’—to justify the sua sponte [granting of dispositive relief]” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Pena, 2026 NY Slip Op 03940, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: The phrase in motion papers requesting “such other relief as is deemed appropriate” cannot be the basis for dispositive relief.​

 

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