You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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

 

, ,

Out-of-Possession Landlord and Lessee Are Not “United In Interest” Such that the Lessee Could Be Added to the Complaint After the Statute of Limitations Had Run (Relation-Back Doctrine)

The Third Department determined Supreme Court, in a snow-ice slip and fall case, properly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, after the statute of limitations had run, to add the lessee of the property (Albany Medical Center Hospital [AMCH]) as a defendant. The defendant out-of-possession landlord demonstrated, under the terms of the lease, AMCH had the responsibility for maintaining the property in a safe condition. Because the out-of-possession landlord and AMCH were not “united in interest,” the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

… [T]he relation back doctrine permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a defendant even though the statute of limitations had expired at the time of amendment so long as three requirements are met: “(1) both claims must arise out of the same occurrence, (2) [the] defendant and [the new party] were united in interest, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) [the new party] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [the] plaintiff as to the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against it as well ” … . While there is no dispute that the first prong of this test is satisfied under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant and AMCH do not share unity of interest inasmuch as they cannot be said to “stand or fall together” … . “Indeed, unless the original defendant and new party are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] there is no unity of interest between them” … . McLaughlin v 22 New Scotland Ave., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07883, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

, ,

Cause of Action Based Upon a Dispute About the Correct Rent-Increase Computation Accrues on the First Use of the Disputed Computational Methodology

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from a dispute about the proper rent computation in an ambiguous contract was time-barred. The lawsuit was started in 2009. However, the rent computation problem was apparent in 1999. That is when the statute of limitations started running and it does not start anew every year the problem persisted:

In Goldman Copeland [260 AD2d 370], this Court squarely held that a claim for breach of contract based on an allegedly erroneous computation of rent accrues upon the first use of that computational methodology, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run anew each time the same formula is used. * * *

Goldman Copeland is a precedent of this Court, and we adhere to it as a matter of stare decisis. Its holding applies to this case, as Tenant consistently paid, and Landlord accepted, rent based on two successive 50-cents-per-square-foot escalations from 1999 through 2009, when this action was commenced. Further, when the first rent escalation went into effect in late 1999, Landlord could have determined, through the use of simple arithmetic, that the lease’s rent illustrations for the initial 25-year term were not based on 10% increases. When Landlord subsequently discovered in 2001 that it had not been billing rent based on a 10% escalation since 1999, the discovery was not based on any information that Landlord had not possessed in 1999. K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07905, 1st Dept 10-29-15

 

,

Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained

Plaintiff alleged he was injured when tackled by police officers. The officers were named in the complaint as “john does.” After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to name the officers involved. The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied because plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in discovering the officers’ names:

In order to employ the procedural “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” mechanism made available by CPLR 1024, a plaintiff must show that he or she made timely efforts to identify the correct party before the statute of limitations expired … . “[W]hen an originally-named defendant and an unknown Jane Doe’ [or John Doe’] party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to the relation-back’ doctrine of CPLR 203(f), based upon postlimitations disclosure of the unknown party’s identity” … . The moving party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine to a later-identified “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” defendant has the burden, inter alia, of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they exercised due diligence to discover the identity of the John Doe defendants prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiffs engaged in any pre-action disclosure or made any Freedom of Information Law requests … . Moreover, there is no indication that the plaintiffs sought assistance from either the Criminal Court or the Supreme Court to learn the identities of the individual officers before the statute of limitations had run … . Although the plaintiffs maintain that, due to a pending investigation by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, they did not learn the identities of the subject officers until the injured plaintiff’s criminal trial, the plaintiffs’ submissions failed to show that they diligently sought to gain access to the records contained in the file for the criminal proceeding prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Holmes v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07819, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract complaint should have been denied. The affidavits and text messages submitted in support of the motion did not constitute “documentary evidence” upon which a motion to dismiss may be based. The court defined “documentary evidence” in this context:

In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as “documentary evidence,” it must be “unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable,’ would qualify as documentary evidence’ in the proper case” … . However, “[n]either affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … .

Here, the affidavits and text messages relied upon by the Supreme Court in concluding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the alleged condition precedent were not ” essentially undeniable,'” and did not constitute documentary evidence … . Eisner v Cusumano Constr., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07812, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

, ,

Dismissal of Criminal Case Did Not Collaterally Estop Civil Case Based Upon the Same Forged-Deed Allegation/No Statute of Limitations Applies to Case Based Upon Forged-Deed Allegation

In an action based upon the allegation the signature on a deed was forged, the Third Department determined no statute of limitations applies to forged deeds which are void ab initio and the dismissal of a Spanish criminal case based upon the forged-deed allegation did not collaterally estop the New York civil action:

We agree with plaintiffs that they are not collaterally estopped from maintaining this action. It is well established that “dismissal of a criminal charge . . . does not generally constitute collateral estoppel in relation to a civil action because of the difference in the burden of proof to establish the factual issues” … . Indeed, the Spanish court dismissed the Spanish criminal action “without prejudice,” expressly permitting the matter to “be referred to civil jurisdiction.” Inasmuch as this dismissal of the Spanish criminal action did not conclusively establish whether the signature was forged, and did not preclude plaintiffs from commencing a similar civil action, defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of proving “that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the [prior action] and is conclusive in the [present] action” … .

Nor should plaintiffs’ action have been deemed time-barred by the statute of limitations. While the limitations period for a cause of action sounding in fraud is the greater of six years after the cause of action accrued or two years after it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]), the Court of Appeals has recently held that this period does not apply when the particular species of fraud alleged is the forgery of a deed. The Court found that, unlike other fraud-based causes of action, “a claim against a forged deed is not subject to a statute of limitations defense” because of “the clarity of our law that a forged deed is void ab initio, and that it is a document without legal capacity to have any effect on ownership rights” … . Mazo v Mazo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07721, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated

In an action against a fiduciary stemming from the distribution of an estate, Supreme Court determined the six-year statute of limitations applied to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and precluded any evidence from prior to 2007.  The Third Department agreed that the six-year statute was the correct one, but held that the statute never started running because the fiduciary’s roles were never terminated. Therefore pre-2007 evidence was not precluded:

Although “New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims [and] the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks” …, the parties do not dispute that a six-year period applies to these two remaining causes of action. However, the statute of limitations for a claim alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated … .

There is nothing in this record indicating that respondents’ relevant fiduciary roles have terminated. Although many of the actions about which petitioners complain were done openly, petitioners also allege that they were repeatedly assured that such actions were ultimately in their best interests. The amended petition alleges that respondents have not to date repudiated their positions as fiduciaries. That allegation is not denied in this pre-answer motion, which was supported only by an attorney’s affirmation and memorandum of law. Matter of Therm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07732, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Patient Held In a Mental Health Facility After the Court Order Authorizing Confinement Had Expired Was Entitled to Habeas Corpus Relief Pursuant to CPLR Article 70

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined that a patient, who was held in a mental health facility pursuant to a court order which the facility neglected to extend, was entitled to release pursuant to a CPLR article 70 habeas corpus proceeding. The hospital unsuccessfully argued that the only habeas-corpus relief available to the patient was pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 33.15 which required an inquiry into the patient’s mental state:

CPLR 7001 provides that article 70 applies to common-law and statutory writs of habeas corpus “[e]xcept as otherwise prescribed by statute” (CPLR 7001). However, nothing in the plain language of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 purports to limit the availability of the common-law writ in Mental Hygiene Law proceedings. Rather, section 33.15 enhances the efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus, as our case law dictates, and thereby ensures that patients are not committed and retained without due process of law. That is, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 allows patients to seek a writ of habeas corpus when they are being held pursuant to a court order but, nevertheless, believe they have sufficiently recovered from their mental illness so that their continued retention is unwarranted; in such cases, determining the legality of their retention would require an inquiry into their mental state. On the other hand, patients whose detention is otherwise unauthorized may proceed under the habeas corpus provisions of CPLR article 70 since the legality of their detention can be determined on the basis of, for example, whether the appropriate procedures have been followed, without the need for a hearing into their mental state.  People ex rel. DeLia v Munsey, 2015 NY Slip Op 07697, CtApp 10-22-15

 

,

Inadequate Pain and Suffering Damages Verdict Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined the jury’s pain and suffering damages award in a slip and fall case was against the weight of the evidence and Supreme Court properly set the damages verdict aside:

After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $20,000 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering. The trial court correctly granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages, as that verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the evidence that her shoulder injury was permanent in nature … . The award for past pain and suffering was also contrary to the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Santana v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Forum Selection and Time Limitation Clauses in Cruise Ship Ticket Enforceable

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the forum selection and time limitation clauses in a “Carnival” cruise ship ticket were enforceable. The passenger’s personal injury complaint was dismissed:

A contractual forum selection clause contained in a cruise passenger ticket is generally enforceable as long as it has been reasonably communicated to the passenger and does not violate notions of fundamental fairness, and the submission thereof constitutes documentary evidence that may provide a proper basis for dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Here, Carnival’s submissions established that the plaintiffs’ contract of carriage included a clause requiring that any disputes between the parties “shall be litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, or as to those lawsuits to which the Federal Courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. to the exclusion of the Courts of any other county, state or country.” Furthermore, the contract provided that an action to recover damages for personal injuries “shall not be maintainable unless filed within one year after the date of the injury.” Carnival also established that the plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to review their tickets, and there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching … . Fritsche v Carnival Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

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