You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

The First Department determined the savings provision of General Municipal Law 50-e applied and a notice of claim which was timely served by an unauthorized method was valid.  The court noted that a motion court can exercise its discretion to hear a motion to renew which relies on information known but not raised at the time the original motion was made:

Although the motion was based on information that was available to plaintiff earlier, “courts have discretion to consider such evidence in the interest of justice” … .

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s notice of claim was not served within the 90-day period set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, and plaintiff had not timely moved for an extension of time to serve. Plaintiff contended that she qualified under either or both prongs of the “savings provision” under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c), which provides that “[i]f the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant. . .be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fails to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.”

Moreover, “[t]he purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipal defendant to make a prompt investigation of the facts and preserve the relevant evidence. The applicable statute should be applies flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error. General Municipal Law § 50-e was not meant as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against spurious ones” … .

Here, the record shows that plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant on December 8, 2011 via regular mail, which did not comply with the requirement that service be completed in person or via registered or certified mail. However, defendant subsequently demanded that plaintiff appear for examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h with regard to her claim. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim is valid under the first prong of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c). Person v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05417, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

 

, ,

Court Properly Ordered Further Deposition of County Employee and the Deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works Based Upon Plaintiff’s Showing the Witness Previously Provided Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge

The Fourth Department noted that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the further deposition of a county employee and the deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works concerning the maintenance of a section of the road where plaintiff’s-decedent’s car left the road and struck a pole.  The employee’s prior testimony was incomplete because he could not recall relevant information. And, although the county can determine who should be deposed on its behalf, the court can order the deposition of a specific witness where the plaintiff shows the witness previously produced did not have sufficient knowledge:

“A trial court has broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion” … . We note with respect to the employee that he admitted at his initial deposition that he could not recall specific details relevant to plaintiffs’ theory of the County’s liability without reviewing the documents that subsequently were produced by the County. We thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the further deposition of the employee concerning those documents.

We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the County to produce the Commissioner for a deposition. “Although a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for a deposition, a plaintiff may demand production of additional witnesses when (1) the officers or employees already deposed had insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the person sought for deposition possesses information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” … . Here, the record establishes that the two employees previously produced by the County have at most a general understanding of the reconstruction project contemplated by the County with respect to the section of road where the accident occurred and the reasons that the reconstruction project was abandoned, while the Commissioner has peculiar and specific knowledge about that project and the decision-making process pursuant to which it was abandoned. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that the employees previously produced by the County “did not possess sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts or [were] otherwise inadequate” … . Black v Athale, 2015 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to the administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) should have been granted.  Plaintiff amended the bill of particulars to allege she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (stemming from the underlying car accident). Plaintiff placed her mental condition in issue, and there was no showing the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful:

Where the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the party may be required to submit to a medical examination … . However, a plaintiff who places his or her physical or mental condition in controversy will not be required to undergo an examination or objective testing procedure which is invasive, painful, or presents the possibility of danger to life or health … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff’s mental condition was put into controversy by her service of the bill of particulars denominated a second supplemental bill of particulars, in which she alleged that she has post-traumatic stress disorder that was caused by the accident. In support of their motion, the defendants established, through the affidavit of a psychologist, that the MMPI-2 is a conventionally accepted noninvasive test utilized for the assessment of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to establish that subjecting herself to the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful to her health … . Peculic v Sawicki, 2015 NY Slip Op 05168, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, , ,

Signed Consent Form Precluded Cause of Action for Assault and Battery (Re: a Hysterectomy)—Defendant Demonstrated the Allegation Plaintiff Did Not Consent to the Hysterectomy Was “Not a Fact At All”–Question of Fact Raised Re: the “Lack of Informed Consent” Cause of Action

The Second Department, over a partial concurrence/dissent, determined defendant was entitled to dismissal of the assault and battery cause of action, which was based on the allegation a hysterectomy was performed without plaintiff’s consent.  The evidence however demonstrated plaintiff signed a consent form, and thereby demonstrated that the “without consent” factual allegation was “not a fact at all.”  Plaintiff did, however raise a question of fact concerning the “lack of informed consent” cause of action. The court explained the elements of assault and battery in this context, the elements of a “lack of informed consent” cause of action, as well as how to handle a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action which is accompanied by evidentiary submissions:

“When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action. In considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one . . . [The motion] must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

“To plead a cause of action to recover damages for assault, a plaintiff must allege intentional physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact'” … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature” … . Here, the evidence in the record upon which the Supreme Court relied established that “a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff” was “not a fact at all” … . Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s allegations and testimony that she never gave permission for the performance of a hysterectomy, the signed consent form clearly authorized such a procedure, and she admitted that she signed the consent form. Therefore, dismissal of the assault and battery cause of action was proper … .

“To succeed in a medical malpractice cause of action premised on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the practitioner failed to disclose the risks, benefits and alternatives to the procedure or treatment that a reasonable practitioner would have disclosed and (2) a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, fully informed, would have elected not to undergo the procedure or treatment (see Public Health Law § 2805-d [1], [3])…). Here the plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicates that she was not fully advised of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure or treatment, including the fact that one of the risks was a total hysterectomy and/or perforation of the bowel, nor was it established as a matter of law that if the plaintiff received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure. Since the defendants’ submissions included the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, they failed to establish, prima facie, that there were no triable issues of fact with respect to the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. Thaw v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05173, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Negligence and Proximate Cause Inextricably Interwoven—Verdict Finding that Defendant Was Negligent but Such Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injury Properly Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence

The plaintiff-student was sexually assaulted at school.  The jury found the school was negligent in its supervision of its students, but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.  The Second Department determined the verdict was properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence.  The issues of negligence and proximate cause were inextricably interwoven, such that finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of injury was against the weight of the evidence:

“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” … . ” A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were inextricably interwoven, such that the jury’s finding that the defendants were negligent, but that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the infant plaintiff’s injuries, was contrary to the weight of the evidence … . Victoria H. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 05156, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Although It Was Proper to Consider the Motion to Dismiss Made After Issue Was Joined a Motion for Summary Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Motion Without Giving Notice to the Parties So the Parties Could Lay Bare Their Proof

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment without notice to the parties.  Because the motion to dismiss was made after issue was joined, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment. However, because none of the exceptions to the notice requirement applied, Supreme Court should not have determined the motion without giving the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence.  The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Since the [defendants’] motion was made after issue was joined, the Supreme Court correctly determined that it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . However, the Supreme Court “was required to give adequate notice to the parties’ that the motion was being converted into one for summary judgment” …, unless one of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement was applicable … . Here, no such notice was given, and none of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable … . Neither the [defendants] nor the plaintiff made a specific request for summary judgment, nor did they “indicate that the case involved a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” … . Further, the parties’ evidentiary submissions were not so extensive as to “make it unequivocally clear’ that they were laying bare their proof’ and deliberately charting a summary judgment course'” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, converting the [defendants’] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment, and should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05159, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Change of Venue to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety Properly Granted–Plaintiff Was a Long-Time Senior Employee of Supreme Court in the County Where the Action Was Brought

The plaintiff was employed by Supreme Court Queens County.  For that reason, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted the motion to change the venue from Queens County to Nassau County to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

“To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), a 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” … . A motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion … . Under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff has been employed at the Supreme Court, Queens County, since 2001, first as a court officer, and more recently as a senior court clerk, the Supreme Court providently granted the motions for a change of the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety … . Rutherford v Patel, 2015 NY Slip Op 05170, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

Requirements for a Finding of Civil Contempt Explained (Not Met Here)

In finding the motion to hold a party in civil contempt was properly denied (no clear and convincing evidence mandate in a subpoena was disobeyed), the Second Department explained the relevant law:

To find a party in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, ” (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” … . Korea Chosun Daily Times, Inc. v Dough Boy Donuts Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05161, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, , ,

CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System

Plaintiffs sought replacement-cost damages for a defective septic system, alleging the town negligently approved the system prior to plaintiffs’ purchase of the property. Although the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had passed, the plaintiffs argued that CPLR 214-c applied. CPLR 214-c applies to latent defects and the statute starts running upon discovery of the injury.  The Fourth Department determined CPLR 214-c did not apply, noting that the Court of Appeals has held the statute applies only to injury from “toxic torts:”

CPLR 214-c (1) provides that “the three-year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property must be commenced shall be computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” … .

Here, plaintiffs do not seek “damages for personal injury or injury to property” (CPLR 214-c [1]); rather, they seek to be compensated for the cost of replacing an allegedly defective septic system. Thus, section 214-c is inapplicable to this action … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in interpreting section 214-c, has made clear that it applies only to toxic torts …, and plaintiffs’ claims have nothing do to with toxic substances. Instead, plaintiffs merely allege that the septic system was defective and that defendants failed to identify the defects during their inspections. We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the causes of action against the moving defendants are time-barred. Clendenin v Town of Milo, 2015 NY Slip Op 04976, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

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