You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

THE ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’ GRABBED PLAINTIFF’S SHOULDERS AND TOUCHED PLAINTIFF’S CHEEKS DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS “FORCIBLE TOUCHING” OR FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, over an extensive dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined this lawsuit alleging a tortious “forcible touching” and intentional infliction of emotional distress should have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleges that during the summers from 2000 through 2003, he worked in the wardrobe department of Roanoke Island Historical Association (RIHA), where defendant Long also worked. According to plaintiff, during that period there were numerous instances where Long committed acts of sexual misconduct toward plaintiff. The most egregious occurred in 2002, when Long engaged in nonconsensual sex with plaintiff while plaintiff was intoxicated. Plaintiff alleges that six years later, in 2008, after not having had any contact with Long, he briefly encountered Long in a public costume shop where Long grabbed plaintiff’s shoulders and touched plaintiff’s cheeks. * * *

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant Long’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, as defendant established that plaintiff’s allegations do not “fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Plaintiff failed to properly allege facts sufficient to establish a tort that would constitute forcible touching under Penal Law § 130.52(1). Long’s alleged acts of grabbing plaintiff’s shoulders and touching his cheeks “with the intimacy of a grandmother greeting her grown grandchild” were not, under the circumstances, sexual or intimate in nature, as required by the statute.

Penal Law § 130.52(1) was enacted in 2000. It states that “a person is guilty of forcible touching when such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire.” “[F]orcible touching includes squeezing, grabbing or pinching” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s shoulders and cheeks did not constitute “sexual or intimate parts” that were “sufficiently personal or private that [they] would not be touched in the absence of a close relationship between the parties” … . Thus, Long’s acts of grabbing plaintiff’s shoulders and touching his cheeks were not, under the circumstances, sexual or intimate in nature, as necessary to state a claim for forcible touching … . Watson v Roanoke Is. Historical Assn., 2026 NY Slip Op 02949, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the allegations necessary to state a cause of action for tortious “forcible touching.”

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS DESTROYED SPEADSHEETS WHICH MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE NEED TO CUT COSTS; PLANTIFF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this employment discrimination action should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The defendants destroyed retail store spreadsheets which could have demonstrated plaintiff’s termination was not motivated by the need to cut costs. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated because he aided Egyptian employees who complained on national origin or religious discrimination. The First Department held plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference jury charge:

… [T]he court erred in denying spoliation sanctions. Defendants breached their duty to preserve evidence by destroying retail store spreadsheets which were the only contemporaneous data on profits, payroll, and performance after litigation was reasonably anticipated … . Plaintiff’s October 2017 warning against tampering with accounting and payroll records triggered a preservation obligation that required defendants to suspend routine destruction policies … . Defendants cannot claim the records were deleted in the ordinary course of business, as a routine retention policy is no defense once the duty to preserve attaches … . Further, sanctions are warranted where a party’s negligence or intent deprives an opponent of the means of proving their claim … . Here, the destroyed spreadsheets are central to the issue of pretext. While defendants claim cost-based downsizing as the reason for termination, the destroyed data was the only evidence available to test whether the stores were actually underperforming or if plaintiff’s termination was retaliatory. Because this unique, irrecoverable evidence was within defendants’ exclusive control, its destruction is highly prejudicial. Accordingly, plaintiff should be granted an adverse inference charge at the time of trial. Pescales v Pax Ventures LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02942, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Defendants in this employment discrimination action were sanctioned for destroying financial records which could have demonstrated plaintiff’s termination was not motivated by the need to cut costs.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT PLEAD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact in this rear-end collision case. Although defendant had not pleaded the emergency doctrine as an affirmative defense, the doctrine was properly raised in opposition to plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. Defendant was travelling behind a box car on the interstate when the box car suddenly moved into the right lane to avoid plaintiff’s vehicle which was stopped or disabled. Defendant alleged she was unable to stop or change lanes before striking plaintiffs’ vehicle

… Jakubcin [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact by offering a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Jakubcin testified that she was travelling southbound in the center lane on Interstate 95 and that she was following a box car for about 10 miles at 60 miles per hour, when the box car suddenly moved into the right lane after signaling, at which time Jakubcin first observed plaintiffs’ car. Jakubcin testified that plaintiffs’ car was slow moving or became disabled and abruptly stopped in the center lane, only “seconds” in travel time ahead of Jakubcin’s car. The box car had obstructed Jakubcin’s view of the center lane conditions. Jakubcin quickly discerned she could not safely move into either the left or right lanes of the highway due to cars travelling in those lanes near her vehicle. Thus, Jakubcin’s testimony “raises a triable issue as to whether [s]he was entitled to expect that traffic would continue unimpeded” … . Further, there was evidence that plaintiffs’ car was not working and had no lights or emergency lights activated … . While Jakubcin did not plead the emergency doctrine as an affirmative defense, she was not precluded “from raising the issue in response to [plaintiffs’] summary judgment motions” … .  Pearson v Jakubcin, 2026 NY Slip Op 02930, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Here in this rear-end collision case, defendant successfully raised the emergency doctrine in opposition to summary judgement, despite not pleading the doctrine as an affirmative defense.

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT IN RESPONDING TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse for plaintiffs’ default in responding to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case:

… [P]laintiffs proffered a reasonable excuse of law office failure for the brief delay in serving their opposition papers to defendant’s motion (see CPLR 2005…). Although plaintiffs’ counsel admittedly failed to properly calendar the motion opposition date, counsel did attempt to seek defendant’s consent for an adjournment prior to the return date of the motion, which plaintiffs’ counsel apparently believed to be the due date for the opposition to defendant’s motion. Further, plaintiffs’ counsel submitted opposition papers on the return date, albeit after business hours, upon the mistaken belief that the motion was to be taken on submission. There is no evidence of a willful default and the negligible delay cannot be said to have prejudiced defendant … . April I.O. v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 02741, Fourth Dept 5-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a rare instance of law office failure serving as an adequate excuse for a default in responding to a motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF DONALD J TRUMP AGAINST MARY L TRUMP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY RELEVANT TO HER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s discovery requests were relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense and should have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for breach of the confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement agreement. In her answer, defendant asserted the affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement. Specifically, she alleged that she relied upon the valuation of certain assets set forth in the parties’ 2001 settlement agreement, and that those valuations were false. Defendant’s motion to compel seeks discovery of materials related to the valuations provided in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the discovery sought by defendant, which relates to an affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement that plaintiff has not otherwise challenged in this action, is improper … .

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. CPLR 3101(a) directs “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” and is to be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . These principles entitle defendant to the requested discovery material to establish her affirmative defense … . Trump v Trump, 2026 NY Slip Op 02735, First Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here in this breach of contract action, defendant was entitled to discovery relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense.

 

, , , , ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this wrongful termination and retaliation action was entitled to discovery of so-called RL6 reports addressing unsafe working conditions. Defendant hospital claimed the documents were privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq. [hereinafter PSQIA]):

Plaintiff was employed as a nursing assistant and technician within defendant’s secure unit for patients with behavioral health and psychiatric conditions. He commenced this action for wrongful termination and retaliation under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, claiming that defendant unlawfully fired him after he reported unsafe workplace practices and conditions. During discovery, plaintiff demanded copies of his statements to defendant, including his June 2022 report of safety concerns submitted to defendant’s electronic reporting system. Plaintiff also requested the parties’ communications about the secure unit and defendant’s responses to prior related complaints or concerns. * * *

“[A] party does not obtain the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) merely because the information sought could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding[.] . . . The exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained” … . In short, the administrator’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden under Education Law § 6527 (3) … . Moreover, defendant conceded, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the RL6 reports were not submitted to a quality assurance or peer review committee. …

Assuming, without deciding, the doubtful proposition that PSQIA applies to this state law claim, defendant failed to demonstrate that the RL6 reports at issue constitute privileged patient safety work product. Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the scope of the Education Law privilege protecting hospital quality-review proceedings. Here the privilege did not extend to employee reports about unsafe working conditions.

 

, , , ,

UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …

Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):

… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.

 

, ,

AN ATTORNEY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY AN AGENT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS; HERE DEFENDANTS’ FORMER ATTORNEY WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS’ BEHALF; PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBTAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ former attorney did not have authority to accept service on defendants’ behalf. Personal jurisdiction over defendants was therefore never attained:

​”Service of process must be made in strict compliance with statutory methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person pursuant to CPLR 308″ … . CPLR 308(3) permits service upon an individual to be made “by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service of the person to be served designated under rule 318” … . “An attorney is not automatically considered the agent of his client for the purposes of the service of process” … . “[A]n attorney who agrees to accept service on behalf of individual defendants does not automatically become an agent for the acceptance of process, in the absence of proof that his clients actually knew of that representation” … . Here, the plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the defendant’s former attorney, who lacked authority to accept service on behalf of the defendant. Thus, personal jurisdiction over the defendant was never obtained. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Klamm, 2026 NY Slip Op 02661, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: An attorney is not automatically an agent of his client for service of process. Here defendants’ former counsel was not authorized to accept service on their behalf.

 

THE DEFENDANTS’ PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER DETERMINING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a pre-answer motion to dismiss extends the time to amend the complaint as a matter of right:

The plaintiffs correctly contend that the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiffs required leave of court to amend the complaint. “Pursuant to CPLR 3211(f), service by the defendant[s] of the pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint extended the [defendants’] time to answer the complaint until 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order determining the motion, and therefore extended the time in which the [plaintiffs] could amend the complaint as of right” … . Karp v Madison Realty Capital, L.P., 2026 NY Slip Op 02637, Second Dept 4-29-26

 

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