You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct of Judge Required New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case

The Second Department reversed and sent a medical malpractice case back for retrial on liability because of the excessive intervention and improper conduct by the trial judge.  The Second Department wrote:

…[T]he trial justice’s excessive intervention in the proceedings, as well as the cumulative effect of the trial court’s improper conduct, deprived the plaintiff of her right to a fair trial (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; 4017…). “[A]ll litigants, regardless of the merits of their case, are entitled to a fair trial” …. A trial justice plays a “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” but that “power is one that should be exercised sparingly” …. Accordingly, a trial justice may not ” so far inject himself [or herself] into the proceedings that the jury could not review the case in the calm and untrammelled spirit necessary to effect justice'” … .

A trial justice must maintain an atmosphere of impartiality. Here, while the plaintiff’s counsel may have been overly aggressive, and at times even antagonized the trial justice, nonetheless, a trial justice should ” at all times maintain an impartial attitude and exercise a high degree of patience and forebearance’ “…. Indeed, our review of the record convinces us that the repeated conflict between the court and the plaintiff’s counsel, at all phases of the trial-and often times in the presence of the jury-unnecessarily injected personality issues into the case, which militated against a fair trial. The trial justice demonstrated a propensity to interrupt, patronize, and admonish the plaintiff’s counsel, and gave the plaintiff’s counsel significantly less leeway with regard to examination and cross-examination of witnesses than that which was afforded the defendants’ counsel. *  *  *

Under the circumstances of this case, by virtue of the cumulative effect of the improper conduct of the trial justice, the plaintiff was deprived of a fair trial. As a result, the jury could not have considered the issues at trial in a fair, calm, and unprejudiced manner ….  Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03467, 2nd Dept 5-15-13

 

 

 

,

For Purposes of CPLR 205 (a) (Allowing the Commencement of a New Action within Six Months of the Termination of a Prior Action) a Prior Action Terminates When a Nondiscretionary Appeal Is “Exhausted,” Even If the Appeal Is Dismissed As Abandoned

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the six-month period for commencing a new action after the termination of a prior action afforded by CPLR 205 (a) runs from the termination of an appeal, even if the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. Here the plaintiff started an action in federal court which was dismissed by District Court.  Plaintiff then appealed as of right to the Second Circuit.  The appeal was dismissed for failure to file the brief and appendix.  Plaintiff, before the federal appeal was dismissed, started an action in state court. The state court action was started more than six months after the District Court had dismissed the federal action and defendants moved to dismiss the state action under CPLR 205 (a).  The Court of Appeals held that the CPLR 205 (a) six-month period did not start running until the federal appeal was dismissed.  Therefore the state action was timely commenced:

In its current form, CPLR 205 (a) provides:

“If an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action and that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period.” * * *

… [T]his Court has not addressed the issue of when a prior action terminates for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) where, as here, an appeal is taken as of right but is dismissed by the intermediate appellate court due to the plaintiff’s failure to perfect. We resolve that question now by … holding that, where an appeal is taken as of right, the prior action terminates for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) when the nondiscretionary appeal is truly “exhausted,” either by a determination on the merits or by dismissal of the appeal, even if the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. Malay v City of Syracuse, 2015 NY Slip Op 04164, CtApp 5-14-15

 

,

In Extraordinary Circumstances, Testimony by Two-Way Video Conference Can Be Used In Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Proceedings

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that the judge in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding has the discretion, in extraordinary circumstances, to allow testimony by electronic appearance (live two-way video conference). Here, however, the respondent objected to the procedure and the State did not demonstrate the requisite extraordinary circumstances.  The error  was deemed harmless however:

…[W]e hold that permitting the two-way, live video testimony … was within the discretion of the court. As we have previously explained, “[l]ive televised testimony is certainly not the equivalent of in-person testimony, and the decision to excuse a witness's presence in the courtroom should be weighed carefully. Televised testimony requires a case-specific finding of necessity; it is an exceptional procedure to be used only in exceptional circumstances” … . … [Here} [p]ermitting [the witness] to deliver her testimony via video conference over respondent's objection without requiring a proper showing of exceptional circumstances was error. Matter of State of New York v Robert F., 2015 NY Slip Op 04162, CtApp 5-14-15

 

Inadequate Excuse for Delay In Answering Complaint—Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Should Have Been Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the bank’s (BAC’s) motion to vacate a default judgment in a foreclosure action.  The bank’s excuse (clerical error) was conclusory and belied by a pattern of neglect:

“To defeat a facially adequate CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there was no default, or that it has a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Whether a proffered excuse is reasonable is a sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … .

Here, BAC’s proffered excuse, that its default in appearing and answering the complaint was due to a clerical error, was unsubstantiated, conclusory, and inadequately explained, and, therefore, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default … . Moreover, the record demonstrates that the alleged mistake was not an isolated error, but part of a pattern of “repeated neglect” … . In that regard, BAC failed to present a reasonable excuse for its further delay, after being apprised of its default, in cross-moving to vacate its default. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Krauss, 2015 NY Slip Op 04123, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Unopposed Motions to Enter a Default Judgment Properly Denied—Insufficient Proof of Facts Constituting the Claim

In finding the denial of plaintiff’s unopposed motions to enter a default judgment was proper, the Second Department explained the documentary requirements: “A party’s right to recover upon a defendant’s failure to appear or answer is governed by CPLR 3215… . Thus, a plaintiff moving for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant’s failure to appear or answer… . … The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]). While a verified complaint may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]), it must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge … . [A] pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits…” [internal quotations omitted]. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v United Gen. Tit. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04087, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to withdraw admissions made in response to a notice to admit. Plaintiff was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by an employee of defendant, Islip Pizza.  In response to a notice to admit, the defendant stated that the employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. Because defendant’s liability, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, depended entirely on whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, the admission went to the heart of the matters at issue. A request for an admission which deals with an ultimate conclusion is improper (CPLR 3123 (a)). Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw it (CPLR 3123 (b)):

Under CPLR 3123(a), a party may serve upon another party a written request that it admit, among other things, “the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry” (CPLR 3123[a]). The legislative policy underlying CPLR 3123(a) is to promote efficiency in the litigation process by “eliminat[ing] from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial. A notice to admit which goes to the heart of the matters at issue is improper” … . Furthermore, under CPLR 3123(b), a court may at any time permit a party to amend or withdraw any admission “on such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3123[b]…).  Altman v Kelly, 2015 NY Slip Op 04076, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance of Corporate Duties/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted) Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly denied.  Plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell over a hole left when a for sale sign was removed. The defendant moved to dismiss alleging the property was owned by the corporation of which defendant was the sole shareholder.  The Second Department noted that an officer of a corporation may be personally liable for torts committed in the performance of corporate duties. The court explained its role in determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted: “When a defendant submits evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one … . “[U]nless 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, . . . dismissal should not eventuate… ‘. [quotations omitted] Orlando v New York Homes By J & J Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04104, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence was properly denied.  Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when he struck the open door of defendant’s (Roche’s) vehicle.  Defendant testified the door was ajar, not fully open: “A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if 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 … . [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view… . However, where a jury verdict with respect to negligence and proximate causation is irreconcilably inconsistent, because the only reasonable view of the evidence is that a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence … . In this case, it was within the jury’s province to credit Roche’s testimony that she did not open her car door into the plaintiff’s path. The jury reasonably could have concluded that Roche was negligent in some other respect—such as the positioning of her car or her act of leaving the door “slightly ajar”—but that, despite such negligence, the plaintiff should have been able to avoid the collision and, thus, his conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.” [quotations omitted] Membreno v Roche, 2015 NY Slip Op 04102, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, , ,

Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained

In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (where documentary evidence was submitted), the Second Department determined a mortgagee in possession of property (here because the property owner went bankrupt) has a duty to care for the property which is identical a property owner’s duty.  Here plaintiffs alleged the property, which had been damaged by fire, was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that plaintiffs’ neighboring property was damaged. The causes of action for nuisance, negligence and trespass survived the motion to dismiss.  The court noted its role when documentary evidence is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action:

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . While the documentary evidence submitted by One West established that it did not own the defendants’ property at any relevant time … , that evidence did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ contention that One West had a duty based on its status as a mortgagee in possession. In fact, the documents, which establish ownership, did not address the plaintiffs’ contention regarding One West’s alleged status as a mortgagee in possession … . Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

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, as here, 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” … .

The plaintiffs’ contention that [defendant] was a mortgagee in possession has not been shown to be “not a fact at all” … . If [defendant] were, in fact, a mortgagee in possession, it was “bound to employ the same care and supervision over the mortgaged premises that a reasonably prudent owner would exercise in relation to his [or her] own property; he [or she] is bound to make reasonable and needed repairs, and is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his willful default or gross neglect in this regard” … . Thus, the complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of the plaintiff Emeta Allen, which was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss …, properly set forth causes of action alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, and the plaintiffs have causes of action sounding in nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Allen v Echeverria, 2015 NY Slip Op 04075, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained

Noting that CPLR 3216 is extremely forgiving and never requires dismissal based on “neglect to proceed,” the Second Department determined Supreme Court, under the facts, should not have dismissed the action.  A dual showing of a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal:

While generally, the Supreme Court is prohibited from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay in the prosecution of the action and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…) , such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including the minimal 4-day delay in filing the note of issue, the fact that the defendants demanded additional discovery subsequent to the court’s certification order containing the 90-day demand, the absence of any claim of prejudice, and the lack of evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect and delay in prosecuting the action or of any intent to abandon the action, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to excuse the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the deadline for filing the note of issue … . Rossi v Scheinbach, 2015 NY Slip Op 04110, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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