You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply to Causes of Action in Amended Complaint—Amendment Should Not Have Been Allowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have allowed the amendment of a medical malpractice complaint to add causes of action for negligent hiring and supervision. The negligent hiring and supervision allegations were time barred and were different from the medical malpractice allegations such that the relation back doctrine did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 203(f), claims asserted in an amended complaint are “deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203[f]). Thus, when the nature of a newly asserted cause of action is distinct from the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and requires different factual allegations as to the underlying conduct than were contained in the original complaint, the new claims will not “relate back” in time to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the allegations in the original complaint in support of the causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent gave [defendant] notice of the “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved” with respect to the claims of negligent hiring and supervision … . The causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent are distinct not only as to the conduct alleged, but also as to the dates on which the conduct occurred and who engaged in it … . The mere reference to “negligence” in the original complaint did not give [defendant] notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved with respect to the proposed causes of action alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision. Thus, those proposed causes of action could not be deemed to relate back to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Calamari v Panos, 2015 NY Slip Op 06875, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

The Martin Rule, Which Prohibits Actions Against Unincorporated Associations Unless the Actions Complained of Were Authorized or Ratified, Does Not Prohibit Actions Against Individual Association Members

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that, although the Martin rule prohibited the “defamation/tortious interference with business relations” actions against the union, the actions against individual union members were not prohibited.  The Martin rule bars suit against unincorporated voluntary membership associations (here the union) unless the actions complained of were authorized or ratified by the union. But the Martin rule does not bar suit against union members in their individual capacities:

… [T]he Martin rule (see Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276…) … bars all actions against an unincorporated voluntary membership association, and bars claims against the officers of such an association in their representative capacities where there is no allegation that the members of the association authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct complained of.

However, neither the Martin rule nor any other authority precludes causes of action from being asserted against individual members of the union defendants in their individual capacities … . In Martin, only the claims asserted against union members in their representative capacities as officers of the union were dismissed. Notably, the Court of Appeals specifically allowed the libel claims in that action to proceed against the same defendant union members, in their individual capacities … . Cablevision Sys. Corp. v Communications Workers of Am. Dist. 1, 2015 NY Slip Op 06873, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to change venue in a wrongful death action should have been granted. Plaintiff is a retired Supreme Court justice in the county where the action was brought. Change of venue was appropriate to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

A court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county (see CPLR 510[2]). Generally, a motion for a change of venue is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court …, and the resolution of such an application will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … .

To succeed on a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), the movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently denied the defendants’ motion to change venue. Although he is now retired, the plaintiff’s tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, supports a change of venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County to “protect[ ] the court from even a possible appearance of impropriety” … . Lisa v Parikh, 2015 NY Slip Op 06897, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to a pre-foreclosure settlement conference under CPLR 3408. The underlying loan was secured by shares in the cooperative apartment where defendant resided. Such a loan was not a “home loan” within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, and therefore was not subject to the mandatory settlement conference under the CPLR:

CPLR 3408 requires, in relevant part, that a court hold a mandatory settlement conference in “any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan as such term is defined in section thirteen hundred four of the real property actions and proceeding law” (CPLR 3408[a]). RPAPL 1304 does not include, in its definition of “home loan,” a loan secured by shares of stock and a proprietary lease from a corporation formed for the purpose of cooperative ownership in real estate (RPAPL 1304[5][a][iii]; cf. Banking Law §§ 6-l[1][e][iv]; 6-m[1][d][iv]). Accordingly, because the subject loan is not a home loan within the meaning of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408. DaCosta-Harris v Aurora Bank, FSB, 2015 NY Slip Op 06879, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Setting Aside the Verdict

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it set aside the verdict in a personal injury trial based upon the conduct of the defense attorney:

The plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a): (1) in the interest of justice, contending that defense counsel’s improper and inflammatory remarks during summation deprived them of a fair trial; and (2) contending that the verdict as to damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the first ground, and the defendants appeal.

Under CPLR 4404(a), a trial court has the discretion to order a new trial “in the interest of justice” (CPLR 4404[a]…). In considering whether to exercise its discretionary power to order a new trial based on errors at trial, the court “must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to [its] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision’ … . On appeal, however, this Court is invested with the power to decide whether the trial court providently exercised its discretion … .

Here, we conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a new trial. The plaintiffs’ claims regarding defense counsel’s conduct center on remarks made by defense counsel during her summation, although they also challenge her cross-examination of certain witnesses. Some of the challenged conduct was certainly improper, and we do not condone it … . Nonetheless, viewing defense counsel’s conduct in the context of the entire trial, we conclude that it was not pervasive or prejudicial, or so inflammatory as to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial … . Lariviere v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06894, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn

The Second Department determined the “homeowner’s exception” to the applicability of the Labor Law did not apply to a barn used to house horses for commercial purposes, even though the barn included an apartment used by one of the horse farm’s shareholders. The court also noted that the “recalcitrant worker” affirmative defense should not have been dismissed “sua sponte” in the absence of a motion to dismiss it.  With respect to the homeowner’s exception, the court explained:

“… [T]he plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating that he was not performing work at a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Among other things, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant described itself as “essentially . . . a business for keeping horses,” its owners were extensively involved in both keeping and racing horses, and approximately eight horses were boarded at the subject property at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s submissions also established that when the defendant corporation originally purchased the subject property, the large barn was in a state of disrepair. The defendant renovated the large barn and added many improvements to the property, including multiple paddocks, an additional barn, and an “Equicisor,” a “72-foot circular automated horse exercising machine.” One of the defendant’s shareholders described the apartment in the rear of the barn as a part-time “office residence” where he might stay a ‘few days’ per week, although the amount of time he stayed varied depending on the season and the horse racing schedule. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant’s boarding stable, which was used primarily for commercial purposes, did not constitute a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption …”. Rossi v Flying Horse Farm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06798, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because the Rejection Was Not Accompanied by an Adequate Description of the Defect—Supreme Court Properly Ignored Defect Because there Was No Prejudice to Plaintiffs

The Second Department affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to enter a judgment on the ground defendant failed to appear in the action. The plaintiffs had rejected defendant’s answer because the verification was defective. The Second Department noted (1) the rejection of the answer was not effective because the rejection was not accompanied by an explanation of the nature of the alleged defect and (2), because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice, Supreme Court properly ignored the defect:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3022, when a pleading is required to be verified, the recipient of an unverified or defectively verified pleading may treat it as a nullity provided that the recipient with due diligence returns the [pleading] with notification of the reason(s) for deeming the verification defective” … . Here, at the outset, the plaintiffs’ rejection of the defendant’s answer was ineffective, as it failed to specify the reasons or objections with sufficient specificity … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court properly found, the plaintiffs suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the complained-of defect was properly “ignored” by the Supreme Court … . Gaffey v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 06779, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

“Due Diligence” Demonstrated—“Nail and Mail” Service Appropriate

In a foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank demonstrated “due diligence” in attempting personal service on the homeowner, such that the “nail and mail” service was appropriate:

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence (see CPLR 308[4]…). The term “due diligence,” which is not defined by statute, has been interpreted and applied on a case-by-case basis … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has stated that “in determining the question of whether due diligence has been exercised, no rigid rule could properly be prescribed” … . As a general matter, the “due diligence” requirement may be met with “a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant’s residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times” … .

Here, the affidavit of the process server demonstrated that three visits were made to the homeowner’s residence on three different occasions and at different times, when the homeowner could reasonably have been expected to be found at that location … . The process server also described in detail his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an employment address for the homeowner … . Contrary to the homeowner’s contention, under these circumstances, the due diligence requirement was satisfied… . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Besemer, 2015 NY Slip Op 06806, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Law of Plaintiff’s Residence Applied to Action Alleging Injury from Use of Plaintiff’s Image and Voice (Video Clip) on a Television Show

The Second Department determined New York law, not California law, applied to plaintiff’s complaint alleging injury stemming from the use of a video clip, in which plaintiff appeared, on a television show. The plaintiff resided in New York, and the video clip was edited in California. The complaint alleged violation of California law. The Second Department explained why New York law applied and further determined that the video clip did not violate New York’s Civil Rights Law (sections 50 and 51) because the clip was not used for advertising:

New York uses an interest analysis, under which “the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in resolving the particular issue” is given controlling effect … . Pursuant to the interest analysis, “[a] distinction [is made] between laws that regulate primary conduct (such as standards of care) and those that allocate losses after the tort occurs” … . If the conflicting laws regulate conduct, the law of the place of the tort “almost invariably obtains” because “that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders” … . “[W]here the plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in different states, the applicable law in an action where civil remedies are sought for tortious conduct is that of the situs of the injury” … .

Applying these principles, the law of New York, where the alleged injury or damage occurred, applies. Although the alleged tortious conduct, the editing of the video clip, occurred in California, the plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred in New York, where he is domiciled and resides. Moreover, New York is the state with the greater interest in protecting the plaintiff, its citizen and resident. Sondik v Kimmel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06803, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing. ‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

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