You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motions to set aside the verdict in this Labor Law 200/common law negligence action were properly denied. The court explained the level of supervision required to hold gas station subtenants liable for a forklift injury, and the criteria for setting aside a verdict:

 

“To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when [the] defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work [was] performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . “If the challenged means and methods of the work are those of a subcontractor, and the owner or contractor exercises no supervisory control over the work, no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 or the common law” … .

… “To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” … . In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . “In making this determination, a court must not engage in a weighing of the evidence,’ nor may it direct a verdict where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question'” … . …

“[A] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . The apportionment of fault among the parties is generally an issue of fact for the jury … , and the jury’s apportionment of fault should not be set aside unless it could not have been reached based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Hernandez v Pappco Holding Co., Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 01295, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

LABOR LAW (LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL-CONTRACT ACTION WHERE ORIGINAL ACTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON A WRITTEN CONTRACT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined defendant did not waive the statute of limitations defense not raised in the answer to the original complaint, but raised in the answer to the amended complaint. The court further concluded a subsequent action based upon an alleged oral agreement did not relate back to the original action based upon a written agreement and was therefore time-barred:

 

Generally, a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived unless raised by pre-answer motion or in the defendant’s answer (see CPLR 3211[e]). A defendant, however, may assert a statute of limitations defense for the first time in an answer served in response to a plaintiff’s amended complaint … . Moreover, a party may amend its pleading once without leave of court, among other circumstances, within 20 days after service of that pleading (see CPLR 3025[a]). An amended answer, made as a matter of right pursuant to CPLR 3025(a), may include a statute of limitations defense previously omitted … . * * *

The relation-back doctrine permits a plaintiff to interpose a claim or cause of action which would otherwise be time-barred, where the allegations of the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven and the cause of action would have been timely interposed if asserted in the original complaint … . The relation-back doctrine is inapplicable where the original allegations did not provide the defendant notice of the need to defend against the allegations of the amended complaint … . Moezinia v Ashkenazi, 2016 NY Slip Op 01300, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE; HERE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE “NEW” EVIDENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew an application for an order of reference in a mortgage foreclosure action should have been granted. The court noted that the criteria for a motion to renew is flexible, there is no time-limit for bringing the motion, and the motion can be granted even when movant should have been aware of the “new” evidence:

 

Generally, “a motion for leave to renew is intended to bring to the court’s attention new or additional facts which were in existence at the time the original motion was made, but unknown to the movant” … . However, the requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon new or additional facts unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may also grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made … . Except where a motion to renew is based upon a change in the law, which is not the case here, CPLR 2221 does not impose a time limit for making a motion for leave to renew … . Here, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference, as it submitted documentary proof that the defendants failed to answer the complaint within the time allowed, that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, that the defendants defaulted, “and that, as a preliminary step in obtaining a judgment of foreclosure, the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due on the . . . mortgage would be proper” … . Although the plaintiff should have been aware of the durable power of attorney at the time it initially sought an order of reference, the Supreme Court, under the circumstances, improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, where the plaintiff, having otherwise established its entitlement to an order of reference, submitted, inter alia, the durable power of attorney in support of its renewal motion and the motion was unopposed. Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 2016 NY Slip Op 01148, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, FLEXIBLE CRITERIA, NO TIME-LIMIT, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE NEWLY PROFERRED EVIDENCE)/MOTION TO RENEW (FLEXIBLE CRITERIA, NO TIME-LIMIT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED EVEN THOUGH MOVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE NEWLY PROFERRED EVIDENCE)

, , ,

POLICE OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff police officer had stated causes of action for unlawful discrimination based upon a disability under the Human Rights Law and the federal Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff was arrested for DWI and entered a rehabilitation program where he was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his work in New York City after the 9-11 attack. Plaintiff was terminated upon completion of the rehabilitation program. The city argued his termination was based on the DWI, but plaintiff alleged other officers, who were not disabled, were not terminated after committing a criminal offense. The Fourth Department noted that when the plaintiff’s and defendant’s arguments are equally supported, plaintiff must prevail in a motion to dismiss:

 

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for disability discrimination under the Human Rights Law by alleging that: he has a disability and is therefore a member of a protected class; he is qualified for his position; he suffered an adverse employment action, i.e., termination of his employment; and the termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . Similarly, plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for discriminatory termination under the Rehabilitation Act by alleging that: “(1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the job; (3) he was terminated solely because of his disability; and (4) the program or activity receives federal funds” … . …

In support of those causes of action, plaintiff alleged that the City did not terminate the employment of two nondisabled employees after they were arrested for criminal misconduct, thus raising an inference that his termination was based upon his disability. The court stated in its decision that plaintiff’s allegations “equally support” the conclusions that those two employees and plaintiff were similarly situated, and that they were not similarly situated. On the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), however, facts that equally support opposing inferences must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor … . Regan v City of Geneva, 2016 NY Slip Op 01101, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/REHABILITATION ACT (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY SUPPORTED, PLAINTIFF MUST PREVAIL IN A MOTION TO DISMISS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)POLICE OFFICERS (OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to substitute nunc pro tunc an affidavit of merit and amount due in a foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff could not confirm the proper execution of the original affidavit (a requirement of an administrative order of the chief administrative judge) and sought to substitute the original with an identical affidavit, the proper execution of which could be confirmed. Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The Fourth Department held that the dismissal was not warranted and CPLR 2001 permitted the substitution:

 

” 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, we conclude that “[t]he fact that . . . plaintiff’s [new] attorney[s] attempted to comply, in good faith, with an Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge that did not exist at the time that the action was commenced, or at the time [the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted], does not qualify as such an extraordinary circumstance’ ” that would support a sua sponte dismissal … . Indeed, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s attorney[s] discover[] that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that plaintiff is not “effectively required to commence an entirely new action” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to substitute the affidavit of merit and amount due. “CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Here, we conclude that the substitution of the original affidavit of merit and amount due with a new, substantively identical affidavit of merit and amount due was a ministerial amendment permitted by CPLR 2001 and CPLR 5019 (a) inasmuch as the change affected only plaintiff’s ability to comply with the Administrative Order, and “[t]he attorney affirmation is not itself substantive evidence” … . We further conclude that “[n]o substantial right of [defendant .. .would] be affected by the court’s substitution” … . Indeed, that defendant did not reside in the subject property when plaintiff commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and the property was vacant at that time, and he never joined this action nor made any effort to contest the foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Watanabe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01096, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)

, ,

ORDER ENTERED ON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE; ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE.

In a Family Court matter, the Fourth Department noted that no appeal lies from an order entered by consent. The correct remedy is a motion to vacate the order:

 

Respondent mother appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate an order of fact-finding and disposition, which was entered on the consent of the parties. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in denying the motion on the sole ground that a direct appeal from that order was pending. It is well settled that “[n]o appeal lies from an order entered upon the parties’ consent” … and, indeed, we dismissed the mother’s appeal from the consent order for that very reason … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, the mother’s sole remedy was ” to move in Family Court to vacate the order, at which time [she] [could] present proof in support of [her] allegations of duress, proof which is completely absent from this record’ ” … . Matter of Annabella B.C. (Sandra L.C.), 2016 NY Slip Op 01064, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

APPEAL (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER, ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE)/FAMILY LAW (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A CONSENT ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION, ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE)

, ,

SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.

In finding the defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, the Second Department noted that, although successive summary judgment motions are disfavored, the defendant-city’s second motion was properly entertained. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the police stemming from an attack on her by her husband and the shooting of her husband by the police. Prior to the attack and the shooting, plaintiff had gone to the police station seeking protection but was sent home. The negligence action against the city/police was dismissed on governmental immunity grounds because no “special relationship” between plaintiff and the police had been demonstrated:

 

That branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment should have been granted. Although successive motions for summary judgment are disfavored, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts … .

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . A special duty is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and “is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . The elements required to establish a special relationship are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the police did not assume an affirmative duty to act on Dawes’ behalf … . Graham v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00932, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/POLICE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

, ,

AFFIDAVITS IDENTIFYING THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS; IN THE CONTEXT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT’S FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY.

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to a summary judgment motion because of inconsistencies. The affidavits were from witnesses who saw plaintiff fall and who were able to identify the cause of plaintiff’s fall. In the context of a summary judgment motion, assessing credibility is not the court’s function:

 

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing on this ground, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s submissions included affidavits from two individuals who witnessed the accident and identified the cause of her fall … . The Supreme Court erred in rejecting these two eyewitness affidavits on the ground that they gave inconsistent accounts of the accident. “It is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” …, and any inconsistencies in the affidavits of the two eyewitnesses did not render them both incredible as a matter of law, but rather, raised issues of credibility to be resolved by the factfinder … . McRae v Venuto, 2016 NY Slip Op 00944, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/EVIDENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)

,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected a stipulation which settled the personal injury action with respect to one of the plaintiffs and allowed the matter to proceed to trial with respect to another plaintiff. The Second Department explained the deference which should be accorded a negotiated stipulation:

 

” [P]arties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course and, in so doing, they may stipulate away statutory, and even constitutional rights'” … . The subject stipulation of settlement was made after negotiations among counsel for the respective parties, and the litigants agreed to its terms. In consenting to the stipulation, these parties fashioned the basis upon which their particular controversy would be resolved by providing for the termination of the action with respect to [one plaintiff] and the continuation of the action with respect [the other]… . Astudillo v MV Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00915, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/STIPULATION (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)

,

COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action should have been dismissed as a nullity. The defendant in this car-accident action had died before the complaint was filed. Therefore the complaint was a nullity. The defect could not be remedied by amending the complaint to name the decedent’s estate:

In this action to recover damages for alleged injuries arising from a vehicular accident, the plaintiff did not commence this action against the operator of the offending vehicle until several months after the operator died. Since “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person” … , the action was a nullity from its inception, and the plaintiff was instead required to commence an action against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s attempt to amend the caption of the void complaint to designate the decedent’s estate as the defendant was invalid … . The plaintiff never properly commenced an action against the decedent’s personal representative, and the time within which to do so had expired prior to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Krysa v Estate of Qyra, 2016 NY Slip Op 00940, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)

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