You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff coalition’s declaratory judgment action against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was properly dismissed. The action contended that the DEC’s response to a comment submitted by plaintiff coalition (re; a gas-well permit under State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] review) constituted an unlawful extension of the common law rule of capture and effectuated a trespass on the land owned by a coalition member. The Third Department determined, because the comment period for the relevant rule-making had passed and the relevant rules had not been adopted, and because whether or not the gas-well permit will be issued has not been determined, the declaratory judgment action did not raise a  justiciable controversy:

Assuming, without deciding, that the statewide ban on hydrofracking does not render all of plaintiffs’ claims moot and, further, that plaintiffs each have standing to maintain this declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court nonetheless properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. As this Court recently reiterated, “[i]n order to warrant a determination of the merits of a cause of action, the party requesting relief must state a justiciable claim — one that is capable of review and redress by the courts at the time it is brought for review. A claim is justiciable, in turn, when two requirements are met: first, that the plaintiff has an interest sufficient to constitute standing to maintain the action and, second, that the underlying controversy involves present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or remote, prejudice to the plaintiff” … . Again, even assuming that plaintiffs have satisfied the standing element of this equation, the fact remains that their entire complaint is predicated upon either (1) defendant’s allegedly improper response to a comment made by the Coalition regarding proposed draft regulations that ultimately were not adopted, or (2) the theoretical consequences of a well bore or fluid fracture penetrating the subsurface of [a plaintiff’s] property. Community Watersheds Clear Water Coalition, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 08890, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/HYDROFRACKING BAN (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/NATURAL GAS (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)

DEFAULT JUDGMENT GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT.

The Second Department, in affirming a cross-motion for summary judgment, explained that plaintiffs’ action was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata based upon a default judgment taken against them. Plaintiffs did not move to vacate the default judgment. Therefore the judgment precluded plaintiffs’ action as to any matters actually litigated and any matters that might have been litigated in the prior action:

“[R]es judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action, or in privity with a party who was” … . “The doctrine is applicable to an order or judgment taken by default which has not been vacated, as well as to issues which were or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … . Here, an order was issued in a declaratory judgment action granting the unopposed motion of the plaintiffs therein for leave to enter a default judgment against, inter alia, the appellants, who were named defendants in that action, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint in that action. That order is conclusive for res judicata purposes as to any matters actually litigated or that might have been litigated in that action, and precludes the appellants from maintaining this action … . Albanez v Charles, 2015 NY Slip Op 08795,  2nd Dept 12-2-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAS RES JUDICATA EFFECT)/RES JUDICATA (DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAS RES JUDICATA EFFECT)/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT)

Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, determined: (1) a video of an independent medical exam (IME) surrepticiously made by plaintiff’s attorney should have been turned over to the defense prior to trial; (2) the court’s permission for recording an IME is required; and (3) under the unique circumstances of this case, the request for an IME by a different doctor should have been granted. The opinion is very long and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the additional IME and the IME video, the Second Department wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 3121(a), if a plaintiff’s physical condition is in controversy, the defendant may require the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination … . There is no restriction in CPLR 3121 limiting the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, and a subsequent examination is permissible provided the party seeking the examination demonstrates the necessity for it … . Furthermore, after a note of issue has been filed, as in this case, a defendant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue to justify an additional examination … .

In the present case, unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting a new IME abound. Foremost among them is Dr. Katz’s unavailability to the appellants as a witness at a retrial, due to his refusal to appear voluntarily, which, in turn, resulted from the Supreme Court’s repeated accusation that Dr. Katz “lied” or committed “perjury” at the first damages trial. These extraordinary circumstances were set in motion when the plaintiff’s attorney chose to surreptitiously videotape Dr. Katz’s second IME of the plaintiff, and chose to withhold that recording from defense counsel despite the requirements of CPLR 3101(i). * * *

… [T]he failure of plaintiff’s counsel to seek and obtain the Supreme Court’s permission to videotape the second IME was, by itself, a sufficient reason to prohibit the use of the recording at trial. Further compounding the improper conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in making the recording without procuring the court’s approval in advance was the failure to disclose the recording to defense counsel prior to trial, which was a clear violation of CPLR 3101. Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: “There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: (1) a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a party” (CPLR 3101[a] [emphasis added]). Subsection (i) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“In addition to any other matter which may be subject to disclosure, there shall be full disclosure of any films, photographs, video tapes or audio tapes, including transcripts or memoranda thereof, involving a person referred to in paragraph one of subdivision (a) of this section. There shall be disclosure of all portions of such material, including out-takes, rather than only those portions a party intends to use” (CPLR 3101[i]). Bermejo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08374, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed a Verified Claim to Be a Summons and Complaint Under the Authority of CPLR 2001 (Allowing Correction of Mistakes in the Method of Filing)

Reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined that a verified claim filed by the plaintiff should not have been deemed a summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 2001 (which allows correction or clarification of a mistake in the method of filing):

Plaintiff filed a verified claim in this action and, before answering, defendant filed a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiff had “yet to file a Summons or a Complaint” and that “a complete failure to file is a jurisdictional defect.” Relying upon CPLR 2001, Supreme Court deemed the claim to be a complaint and excused the failure to file a summons as “an irregularity that shall be disregarded in this case.” That was error. We agree with defendant that CPLR 2001 does not permit a court to disregard the complete failure to file a summons, i.e., an initial paper necessary to commence an action … . As recognized by the Court of Appeals in quoting from the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in support of the bill that amended CPLR 2001, the statute may be invoked as a basis to correct or clarify ” a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED’ “… . Fox v City of Utica, 2015 NY Slip Op 08267, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)

In finding defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied, the Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence, and for a motion to dismiss accompanied by the submission of evidence. The court noted that affidavits, deposition testimony and letters do not constitute “documentary evidence” in this context:

A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against it under CPLR 3211(a)(1) “on the ground that . . . a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.” A motion on this ground, however, “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence’ within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . …

… A court may consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Nonetheless, it must be kept in mind that a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion is not a motion for summary judgment unless the court elects to so treat it under CPLR 3211(c), after giving adequate notice to the parties … . Moreover, “[w]here evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” … . Shofel v DaGrossa, 2015 NY Slip Op 08156, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

,

Criteria for Mandamus to Compel Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined the county personnel director’s ruling that community college employees would no longer be eligible for promotions to county jobs was rationally based on the terms of an agreement between the county and the college. In finding that the “mandamus to compel” petition was properly denied, the court explained the relevant criteria:

” The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated'” … . “A discretionary act involve[s] the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'” … . Since the petitioner sought to compel conduct clearly involving the application of … discretion and judgment …, the remedy of mandamus is not available. Matter of Suffolk County Assn. of Mun. Empls., Inc. v Levy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08181, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

,

Due Diligence Requirements for Nail and Mail Service Do Not Apply Under the New York City Charter, One Attempt at Personal Service and Use of Nail and Mail Method for a Notice of Violation (by the NYC Department of Buildings) Sufficient

The First Department determined that, although the New York City Charter refers to CPLR article 3, the “due diligence” requirements for “nail and mail” service in article 3 do not apply to service of a notice of violation (NOV) by the Department of Buildings (DOB). Therefore, one attempt at personal service followed by use of the “nail and mail” method was sufficient service:

The reference to CPLR article 3 in the City Charter’s affix and mail provision merely prescribes the class of individuals whom respondents must try to personally serve, and does not import the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR article 3 … . This interpretation of the City Charter is supported by the statutory language as a whole, and by the legislative history showing a legislative intent to make service under section 1049-a(d)(2) of the City Charter less onerous than service under CPLR article 3 (see id.; see also Governor’s Mem approving L 1979, ch 623, 1979 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 1816-1817). Matter of Mestecky v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08077, 1st Dept 11-5-15

 

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Granted, No Prejudice

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the answer by adding an affirmative defense. The court noted that, absent prejudice, mere lateness is not a sufficient ground for denial of the motion:

Permission to amend a pleading should be “freely given” (CPLR 3025[b]…). Leave to amend an answer to assert an affirmative defense should generally be granted where the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the opposing party … . Here, the defendant sufficiently alleged that the driver of his vehicle did not have his permission or consent to operate his vehicle at the time of the subject accident … . The proposed affirmative defense set forth allegations based on factual matters that are not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .

Furthermore, mere lateness is not a basis for denying an amendment unless the lateness is coupled with ” significant prejudice to the other side'” … . Although the defendant waited over 1 ½ years before moving for leave to amend the answer, there was no showing that the plaintiff would be significantly prejudiced, as discovery was ongoing … . Jeboda v Danza, 2015 NY Slip Op 07951, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

Defendant Who Was Not Served Because Current Address Not on File with Secretary of State Entitled to Vacate Default Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 317

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted pursuant to CPLR 317, even though that ground was not raised below. Apparently defendant did not keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State. Therefore, although the Secretary of State was served, defendant did not receive notice of the suit in time to defend:

… [A]lthough the defendant did not cite CPLR 317 in support of its motion, this Court may, under the circumstances presented here, consider CPLR 317 as a basis for vacating the default (see CPLR 2001…). CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been “served with a summons other than by personal delivery” to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant “did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense” (CPLR 317…). Here, there was no evidence that the defendant or its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time to defend this action … . Proof that additional copies of the summons and complaint were delivered to an employee of the tenant occupying premises owned by the defendant was insufficient to establish that the defendant received notice of the summons and complaint … . Furthermore, there is no basis in the record to conclude that the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid service, especially since the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant’s actual business address … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Schacker Real Estate Corp. v 553 Burnside Ave., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07963, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

, ,

Past Recollection Recorded and Hearsay Inadmissible at Trial Properly Considered in Opposition to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion

The Third Department determined a statement made by defendant’s employee [Mackey] near the time of plaintiff’s slip and fall was admissible as past recollection recorded and was properly considered in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion. In addition, hearsay which would not be admissible at trial was sufficiently corroborated to be considered in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s motion was properly denied:

… “[T]he requirements for admission of a memorandum of a past recollection are generally stated to be that the witness observed the matter recorded, the recollection was fairly fresh when recorded or adopted, the witness can presently testify that the record correctly represented his [or her] knowledge and recollection when made, and the witness lacks sufficient present recollection of the recorded information” … . Here, Mackey testified that, beyond being upset that her cousin was hurt, she was unable to remember the particulars of the event, but she did recall filling out and signing a document recording her memories at the time. In this document, Mackey averred that she watched plaintiff fall by the Coinstar machine in an area that had been checked by the front-end maintenance crew approximately one hour prior to the incident. In the blank space next to the words “Condition at the time of last check prior to accident:” Mackey wrote, “ice machine is always leaking.” Mackey recalled completing this document within days of the incident and explained that the form did not help to refresh her recollection of the events. On this basis, we agree with Supreme Court’s ruling that Mackey’s written statement was admissible as a past recollection recorded and, as such, properly considered in the context of defendant’s motion for summary judgment …

Further, in keeping with the principles that, “[t]o grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented” … and such motion should be denied if there is any doubt as to the existence of such issues …, we likewise find no error in Supreme Court’s consideration of Mackey’s oral statement, notwithstanding its likely inadmissibility at trial. With that said, however, we acknowledge that, although “hearsay evidence that is inadmissible at trial may be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, there must be some additional competent evidence to support the motion or an excuse for the failure to present proof in admissible form” … . Zupan v Price Chopper Operating Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07893, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

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