, ,

Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute Misuse of a Safety Device—Directed Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Was Proper/Plaintiff’s Apparent Failure to Turn Over All of the Relevant Medical Records Required a New Trial on Damages

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the court, after a jury trial, properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was using an A-frame ladder to weld a tank. It was not possible to open the ladder completely unless the ladder was perpendicular to the tank. Because using the ladder in a perpendicular position would have forced plaintiff to twist his body to weld, plaintiff placed the ladder against the tank in a partially open position. The ladder “shook” and plaintiff fell off it. The First Department held that, under those facts, the way plaintiff used the ladder did not constitute misuse of a safety device and, because Labor Law 240(1) was violated, plaintiff’s action could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the injury. A new trial was required, however, because the medical records supplied to the defendants pursuant to a subpoena were much less voluminous than the medical records brought to trial by the plaintiff’s medical expert, thereby depriving the defendants of the ability to fully cross-examine the expert:

A verdict may be directed only if the “court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . The benefit of all inferences is afforded to the non moving party, and the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to it (id.). Here, plaintiff argued that there was no issue of fact necessary for a jury to resolve regarding whether defendants violated their obligation under Labor Law § 240(1) to provide him with an appropriate safety device to guard against the elevation-related risk. That is because, he asserts, there was no alternative safety device readily available to him, and he had no choice but to place the ladder in the closed position given the way the tank was situated. Defendants do not dispute that an unsecured ladder, even one in good condition, can give rise to Labor Law section 240(1) liability if the worker falls from it * * *

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident … . To be sure, we do not disagree with the dissent that, in principle, placement of an A-frame ladder in the closed position “can constitute misuse of a safety device”…. . * * *

Here, plaintiff gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position. Plaintiff testified that using the ladder in an open position and twisting his body to face the tank would have been exhausting, requiring him to take frequent breaks, which defendants did not dispute. Indeed, defendants’ assertion that turning the ladder would have presented an issue of “[m]ere expediency or inconvenience” mischaracterizes the record. In any event, we are hesitant to adopt a rule that, in order to permit a worker to enjoy the protection of Labor Law section 240(1), would require him to take extraordinary measures to perform his work, when he has a good faith belief that doing so would cause him acute discomfort while drastically slowing his pace … . Noor v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06295, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

The Treatment of Pre-Answer Motions to Dismiss an Action for a Declaratory Judgment Explained

The Second Department explained how pre-answer motions to dismiss are handled in the context of an action for a declaratory judgment:

Generally speaking, ” [a] motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . As such, “where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ (CPLR 3001; see CPLR 3017[b]), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied” … .

Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a court may reach the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment where ” no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be taken as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor and treated accordingly” … . North Oyster Bay Baymen’s Assn. v Town of Oyster Bay, 2015 NY Slip Op 06225, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Where Plaintiff Submits an Affidavit/Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Amend the Complaint

The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should not have been granted with respect to one of the defendants, and the motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The court explained the proper way to handle a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action when the plaintiff submits an affidavit in opposition, as well as the criteria for a motion to amend the complaint:

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” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), affidavits may be received for a limited purpose only, usually to remedy defects in the complaint, and such affidavits are not to be examined for the purpose of determining whether there is evidentiary support for the pleading … . ” [A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint'” … * * *

CPLR 3025(b) provides that courts may grant leave to parties to amend or supplement their pleadings, and, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Here, the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint insofar as asserted against [one defendant]. No surprise or prejudice resulted from any delay in the plaintiff’s motion, and the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently without merit insofar as it pertains to that defendant … . Tirpack v 125 N. 10, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06236, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

Failure to Enter a Default Judgment within One Year Justified Dismissal of the Complaint as Abandoned

The Second Department determined, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), plaintiff’s failure to enter a default judgment within one year, and plaintiff’s failure to explain the delay, warranted dismissal of the complaint as abandoned. The court explained the reasons for the rule:

CPLR 3215(c), which is entitled “Default not entered within one year,” states, as relevant to this appeal: “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” The policy underlying the statute is “to prevent parties who have asserted claims from unreasonably delaying the termination of actions, and to avoid inquests on stale claims” … . Upon a showing of the requisite one year of delay, dismissal is mandatory in the first instance … . Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause. To establish “sufficient cause,” the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. [Defendant] demonstrated that the plaintiff had failed to take any proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after she defaulted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient cause why that branch of the motion should be denied. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Hiyo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06100, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have exercised its inherent power to vacate a default judgment more than one year after the judgment was entered (five years here):

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a court may relieve a party from a judgment on the ground of excusable default, if a motion for that relief is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). In addition, even after expiration of the one-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 5015, “a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice”… .

Here, to the extent the defendant sought to vacate the judgment against her pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), that branch of her motion was untimely because it was not made within one year after service upon her of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]… ) . Further, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the interests of substantial justice did not warrant vacating the judgment against the defendant in the exercise of the court’s inherent power … . Yung Chong Ho v Uppal, 2015 NY Slip Op 06132, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Evidence of Post-Accident Elevator-Repairs Not Discoverable

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who was injured in an elevator accident, was not entitled to the post-accident elevator-repair records. Such records are only discoverable if there is a question about whether a defendant actually maintains or has control over an instrumentality, not the case here:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof” … . “[E]vidence of subsequent repairs is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue … .

Here, the plaintiff moved to compel production of post-accident repair records generated during the three-year period between the date of the plaintiff’s accident and the date of the inspection of the subject elevator by the plaintiff’s expert. Yet it is undisputed that the defendant exercised maintenance and control over the elevator. Graham v Kone, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06111, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim

The Second Department determined striking the defendant’s answer was too severe a sanction for spoliation of evidence which was not “willful or contumacious.”  Plaintiff was injured attempting to use a tranquilizer gun. The gun was sent out for repairs after the incident and a portion of the gun was not found after a diligent search.  The sanction was too severe because both parties were prejudiced by the loss and the loss did not deprive plaintiff of the means of proving his claim:

Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence (see CPLR 3126…). “The nature and severity of the sanction depends upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the knowledge and intent of the spoliator, the existence of proof of an explanation for the loss of the evidence, and the degree of prejudice to the opposing party” … .

“The party requesting sanctions for spoilation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to'” prove its claim or defense … . However, ” striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct'” and, thus, the courts must ” consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . When the moving party is still able to establish or defend a case, a less severe sanction is appropriate …. Furthermore, where the plaintiffs and the defendants are equally affected by the loss of the evidence in their investigation of the accident, and neither have reaped an unfair advantage in the litigation, it is improper to dismiss or strike a pleading on the basis of spoliation of evidence … .

The determination of the appropriate sanction for spoliation is within the broad discretion of the court … . This Court will substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court only if that court’s discretion was improvidently exercised … .

Here, the Supreme Court, upon renewal and reargument, improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the sanction of striking the City defendants’ answer, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the City defendants’ failure to preserve the subject tranquilizer gun was willful or contumacious … , or that their conduct deprived him of the means of proving his claim … . The City defendants’ repair of the subject gun prejudiced all parties, but does not prevent the plaintiff from proving his claim … . Morales v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06121, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred

The Second Department determined defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by not making a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Although defendant’s subsequent motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the parties laid bare their proof. Therefore Supreme Court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, seeking to dismiss the complaint as time-barred:

Initially, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by failing to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Rather, a statute of limitations defense may be asserted after joinder of issue in a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . Although the defendant’s motion was made pursuant to 3211(a)(5), the parties clearly charted a summary judgment course by submitting extensive documentary evidence and factual affidavits laying bare their proof … . Thus, the defendant’s motion is properly treated as a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred … . Meredith v Siben & Siben, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06120, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

The Second Department explained there is no requirement that a statute of limitations defense be raised solely in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.  The defense may be asserted in the answer, and subsequently raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial. Although defendant’s post-answer motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 instead of 3212, the procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001:

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant who wishes to raise a defense based on the statute of limitations to do so by way of a motion to dismiss. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of [the] statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). CPLR 3211(e) provides that the defendant may make the motion to dismiss before its answer is required to be served, or may include the defense in its answer and seek relief later. When the defendant does neither, the defense is waived.

“At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) . . . . Any objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraph[ ] five . . . of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading” (CPLR 3211[e]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, a defendant who wishes to assert the statute of limitations as a defense is not limited to asserting it by way of a pre-answer motion. The defendant may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined … .

Here, the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, but raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer. Then, after the note of issue was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Although the defendant denominated its motion as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, rather than as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001, upon proper notice to the parties … . Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06130, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Second Voluntary Discontinuance Operated as an Adjudication on the Merits Requiring Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third Attempt to Commence the Same Action

Before bringing the instant proceeding, the plaintiff had voluntarily discontinued two prior proceedings involving the same matter. Pursuant to CPLR 3217 (c), the second voluntary discontinuance operated as an adjudication of the merits requiring dismissal of the third action:

CPLR 3217(c) provides that unless otherwise stated, inter alia, in a notice of discontinuance, a voluntary discontinuance is “without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” In this case, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the second action, which was based upon the same causes of action as the first action, by notice of discontinuance. Under the circumstances of this case, where there was no legitimate purpose for discontinuing the second action, the second voluntary discontinuance by notice operated as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to CPLR 3217(c)… . Haber v Raso, 2015 NY Slip Op 06113, 2nd Dept 7-15-15