You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim.  A rope attached to a heavy tank being lowered down some stairs by plaintiff severed one finger and a portion of another (“grave injury”). The court found that the incident was gravity-related, plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety devices, and plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injury. The court noted that another party’s cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been denied on the ground the pleadings were not attached to the motion papers.  The pleadings had been provided to the court by other parties. Serowik v Leardon Boiler Works Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04773, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

Delay In Bringing Action Seeking to Stop a Development Project Which Had Been Proceeding for Years Precluded the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction, Despite the Apparent Legitimate Nature of the Allegations

The Third Department determined a preliminary injunction halting a development project which had been proceeding for years should not have been granted.  The development project started with the annexation of land by the village, for which no referendum had been held.  The action brought by the plaintiffs alleged the failure to hold the referendum violated local law and further alleged a conflict of interest arising from the mayor’s acquisition of project property  In spite of the apparently legitimate grounds for the action, the Third Department determined the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed because the action was brought so late and the project, consequently, had progressed so far:

We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ assertion that, in essence, the failure to conduct a referendum leaves the annexation subject to being set aside at any time in the future without regard to any time limitation. Cases involving an alleged failure to adhere to a voting requirement during an annexation have generally been found to be subject to a pertinent limitations’ period … . A statute of limitations may apply even when conduct inconsistent with a statute or the state constitution is alleged … . Simply stated, “a [s];tatute of [l];imitations does not have the effect of curing the underlying wrong, but rather extinguishes the right to judicial relief” … . We need not decide the particular limitations’ period for challenging an annexation made without a referendum — whether four months (see CPLR 217), six years (see CPLR 213) or some time in between (see e.g. CPLR 9802). Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood that a challenge to the annexation based upon the failure to conduct a referendum would be viable where, as here, over seven years have passed since the annexation. …

Next, we consider the 2010 development agreement, which plaintiffs contend is void because [the mayor] had a conflict of interest arising from the 2009 acquisition of some project property by himself and his parents (see General Municipal Law § 804). The 2nd Department, in a case affirmed by the Court of Appeals, has held that the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214 (2) applies to such a claim … . The [Mayor’s] deeds had been a matter of public record since 2009, before the 2010 development agreement was executed. Any conflict was known or should have been known as of the execution in 2010 of the development agreement, which was also a public document. This action was not brought until 2014.

Long delays can be relevant to the issue of whether equitable injunctive relief should be granted … . Although plaintiffs allege some unsavory (or worse) conduct by certain people involved directly or indirectly in the project, it is not clear from this record whether they can successfully show that the project defendants engaged in such conduct so as to prevent them from relying on equitable defenses such as laches … . Rural Community Coalition Inc v Village of Bloomingbury, 2014 NY Slip Op 04110, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Dismissal of a Summary Judgment Motion as “Premature” Requires an Evidentiary Showing that Material Information Is In the Exclusive Possession and Control of the Moving Party

In the course of a decision concerning an easement and land ownership, the Third Department explained the proof requirements for a claim that a summary judgment motion should be dismissed as “premature.” The essence of the “premature” argument is that material facts are within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the moving party. The argument, to succeed, must be supported by an evidentiary showing. Here defendant argued that plaintiff failed to respond to certain discovery demands, but did not take the next step and demonstrate how the failure to respond deprived him of material information in plaintiff’s exclusive possession:

… [T]here was no basis to deny plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as premature. “Although a motion for summary judgment may be opposed with the claim that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but that such material facts are within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the moving party, the party opposing the motion must make an evidentiary showing to support that conclusion” … . Defendant pointed out that plaintiff failed to respond to certain discovery demands, but did not take the essential next step and show that her failure to do so deprived him of material information in her exclusive possession … . Bailey v Dimick, 2015 NY Slip Op 04704, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, ,

Note Which Was Extended and Consolidated with Other Debts Was Not Extinguished by the Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)—the Agreement, Therefore, Did Not Commence the Running of the Statute of Limitations for an Action on the Note

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) did not extinguish a note which was extended and consolidated under the agreement. Therefore the statute of limitations for action on the note did not commence running when the agreement was entered:

We agree with plaintiff that the plain language of the CEMA does not support Supreme Court’s conclusion that the CEMA extinguished the 1992 note and thereby recommenced the running of the statute of limitations. “It is well established that a subsequent note does not discharge the original indebtedness secured unless there is an express agreement between the parties” … . Defendant points to no express agreement and cites no authority supporting its claim that the CEMA operated to extinguish the 1992 note. Rather, the record makes clear that defendant still owed approximately $169,000 on the 1992 note at the time that the CEMA was executed. That debt was consolidated with two other debts into a new note and the mortgage liens were “coordinated, consolidated, combined and extended” to form a single lien. “Where, as here, balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and CEMAs are executed to consolidate the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist” … . Bechard v Monty’s Bay Recreation, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04711, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, , ,

Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction

The Third Department determined, despite a statutory provision prohibiting judicial review when the employee elects to appeal to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial review, the courts have the power to review the agency’s determination when the agency has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Here the petitioner asserted her employment was terminated based on charges brought after the statute of limitations on those charges had passed. The Third Department agreed.  Although there is an exception to the application of the one-year statute of limitations when the charges constitute crimes, here the allegations of misconduct did not include the requisite mens rea for the crime of official misconduct (intent to gain a benefit and knowledge the conduct was unauthorized).  Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied. With respect to the power to review the agency’s determination, the Third Department wrote:

Civil Service Law § 76 (3) provides that where, as here, an employee has elected to appeal to respondent before seeking judicial review, “[t]he decision of [respondent] shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” (see also Civil Service Law § 76 [1]). Such explicit statutory language ordinarily bars further appellate review … . However, statutory preclusion of all judicial review of the decisions rendered by an administrative agency in every circumstance would constitute a grant of unlimited and potentially arbitrary power too great for the law to countenance … . Thus, even when proscribed by statute, judicial review is mandated when constitutional rights are implicated by an administrative decision or “when the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction”… . Matter of De Guzman v State of New York Civ. Serv. Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04712, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, ,

Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant

The Second Department determined plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof at trial. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence re: the installation of foam insulation. The contract called for the installation to conform to the manufacturer’s specifications.  The negligence cause of action alleged the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner. Because defendant would not have been prejudiced, Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiffs to amend the breach of contract cause of action to allege the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner.  Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) for judgment in their favor on the breach of contract cause of action should have been granted. The negligence cause of action, which essentially duplicated the breach of contract cause of action, should have been dismissed. With respect the post-trial motion to amend the pleadings, the Second Department wrote:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence adduced at trial. “Whether to permit a party to amend a pleading is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court and, on review, the Appellate Division” … . Absent prejudice, courts are free, pursuant to CPLR 3025(c), to permit the amendment of pleadings, even after trial … . Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just (see CPLR 3025[b]). “This favorable treatment applies even if the amendment substantially alters the theory of recovery” … .

Here, the proposed amendment to the breach of contract cause of action does not alter the theory of recovery. The complaint alleged that the defendant failed to perform the work in a good and workmanlike manner, albeit in the context of the cause of action alleging negligence. Furthermore, the defendant, who has the burden of establishing prejudice …, failed to assert that it would be prejudiced by permitting the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence adduced at trial that the work was not performed in a good and workmanlike manner … . Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04615, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue

In a medical malpractice case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion re: the venue of these consolidated actions.  Although the venue of the initial action (Queens County) should usually serve as the venue of the consolidated actions, here the medical treatment was rendered at a hospital in Nassau County, many individual defendants resided in Nassau County, and the plaintiffs themselves resided in Nassau County at the time each action was commenced—making Nassau County the best venue for the proceedings:

“When a trial court orders consolidation or joint trials under CPLR 602(a), venue should generally be placed in the county where jurisdiction was invoked in the first action” … . However, where special circumstances are present, the court, in its discretion, may place venue elsewhere … .

Here, the claims relate to treatment rendered at St. Francis Hospital, located in Nassau County. Many of the individual defendants resided in Nassau County. All of the individual defendants worked in Nassau County at the time of the alleged malpractice and lack of informed consent. The plaintiffs themselves resided in Nassau County at the time each action was commenced. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the cross motions which were to place the venue of the consolidated action in Nassau County and denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to place venue in Queens County… . Castro v Durban, 2015 NY Slip Op 04600, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

Defendant’s Submissions Did Not Rebut the Presumption of Receipt of the Summons and Complaint Properly Sent by Ordinary Mail

The Second Department determined defendant’s claims he was out of the country when the summons and complaint were mailed and never received them were insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt based upon proper mailing by ordinary mail:

In support of that branch of his cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … . In support of his contention that he had a reasonable excuse, the defendant claimed that he was out of the country …, and when he returned to the United States there were no summons and complaint or notice of this action in the mail. The defendant’s submissions, however, failed to rebut the presumption of receipt based on proof of the proper mailing of the summons and complaint by ordinary mail … . Therefore, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint … .

In support of that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317, the defendant was required to demonstrate that he did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 317…). The evidence demonstrating that copies of the summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant at the correct residential address created a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt, and the defendant’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Williamson v Marlou Cab Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04636, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

Conclusory Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Burden of Demonstrating Documents Were Privileged Because the Documents Were Prepared Solely In Anticipation of Litigation—Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the appellants were not entitled to a protective order precluding discovery of documents pursuant to CPLR 3103.  The appellants argued the documents were privileged because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation.  However, the conclusory attorney affidavit offered in support of the protective order did not meet the appellants’ burden to demonstrate the specific documents sought were “prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial…”:

CPLR 3101(a) mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” Unlimited disclosure is not mandated, however, and a court may issue a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device “to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts” (CPLR 3103[a]…). “The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” … .

In support of that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order preventing the disclosure of certain witness statements and certain investigation and inspection reports, the appellants contended that such evidence was privileged as it was prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101[d][2]). “The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery” … . Such burden is met “by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … .

Here, the appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the requested material was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and, therefore, is protected from disclosure by the qualified immunity privilege of CPLR 3101(d)(2). An attorney’s affirmation containing conclusory assertions that requested materials are conditionally immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, without more, is insufficient to sustain a party’s burden of demonstrating that the materials were prepared exclusively for litigation … . Ligoure v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04456, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

“Conclusory” Affidavit Submitted In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Did Not Demonstrate the Allegation Defendants Were Directly Liable for Negligent Maintenance of a Taxi Cab Was “Not a Fact At All”—Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety because the documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) did not demonstrate the facts alleged (which could support defendants’ direct liability for negligent maintenance of a taxi cab) “were not facts at all.” Plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle struck a tire which had come off defendants’ taxi cab. Although the information in the affidavit submitted by a defendant was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of causes of action which relied on piercing the corporate veil, the information did not demonstrate defendants could not be directly liable for negligent maintenance of the cab. The related causes of action should not have been dismissed.  The Second Department explained the analytical criteria to be applied when documentary evidence is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action:

“In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should 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” … . Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion 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 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” … .

Here, [defendant’s] affidavit falls short of establishing, conclusively, that [plaintiff] has no cause of action. The affidavit completely fails to address [plaintiff’s] allegation that the subject taxi was not “roadworthy.” The affidavit, while offering conclusory statements, did not supply competent evidence as to which of the various defendants, if any, might have had a duty to maintain, or might in fact have maintained, the offending taxi prior to the accident. Indeed, [defendant’s] conclusory statements are completely unsupported with evidence or specific factual references … and, hence, are of no probative force … . Rathje v Tomitz, 2015 NY Slip Op 04467, 2nd Dept, 5-27-15

 

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