The Second Department noted that the Town Board is not a proper party to an action seeking review of a determination by the town’s Zoning Board. The Zoning Board “is an independent, quasi-judicial, administrative arm of the Town … . The Town Board … had no jurisdiction to hear or determine the subject application and, in fact, neither heard nor determined it.” Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v Town of Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03547, 2nd Dept 4-29-15
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, strictly enforced a Supreme Court “individual part rule” and deemed a summary judgment motion untimely. The rule requires a motion for summary judgment to “filed” within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue. Here the motion was served within the 60 days but was filed on the 61st day. Connolly v 129 E. 69th St. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03450, 1st Dept 4-28-30
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, with an extensive concurrence, determined that the inclusion of the “statute of limitations” in a catch-all paragraph listing many affirmative defenses did not provide sufficient notice to the plaintiff. In addition to failing to separately number and plead each affirmative defense (as required by the CPLR) the defendant failed to plead what the applicable statute of limitations (six years here) was. The court criticized a Court of Appeals case which said that simply mentioning the “statute of limitations” as an affirmative defense is sufficient notice—the First Department specifically suggested that the Court of Appeals revisit the issue. The court held that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the failure to plead the applicable (six-year) statute of limitations because the issue was not directly addressed during discovery as a result of the insufficient notice. Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant was reversed on the merits (competing expert affidavits raised questions of fact). The defendant was allowed to replead the affirmative defense and the plaintiff was allowed further discovery on the issue:
The result of defendant’s failure to comply with CPLR 3014 is that its statute of limitations defense lay buried within a paragraph of mostly irrelevant, and conclusory, defenses. Although plaintiff could have moved to compel separate numbering …, it was not required to make such a motion because defendant’s answer did not necessitate a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3018; CPLR 3024). Thus, plaintiff cannot be forced to accept the defective answer simply because it declined to make a motion to compel separate numbering.
Further, we have no doubt that defendant was permitted to plead its affirmative defenses hypothetically — which it apparently attempted to do by “reserving” those defenses unto itself — but only insofar as those defenses were concise, separately numbered, and sufficiently stated (CPLR 3013; CPLR 3014). A permissive hypothetical pleading does not extend so far as to authorize a defendant to plead each and every affirmative defense that might exist without regard to its relevance to the cause(s) of action presented by the complaint. Permitting such conduct here would effectively sanction deception on the part of defendant, whether intentional or not, thereby avoiding the CPLR’s notice requirement. In other words, defendant’s formulation of its laundry list of defenses in hypothetical terms does not exempt it from the other requirements of CPLR 3014.
The question, therefore, becomes one of prejudice. That is, the CPLR directs us to construe a defendant’s answer liberally and disregard defects unless a substantial right of the plaintiff would be prejudiced (see CPLR 3026). This must be done in light of the overarching directive that the CPLR “be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every civil judicial proceeding” (CPLR 104). “[W]e must literally apply the mandate [to construe pleadings liberally] as directed and thus make the test of prejudice one of primary importance” … . * * *
It seems clear that a court cannot require a level of particularity beyond that outlined by the Official Forms; to do so would contravene CPLR 107’s command that pleadings that comply with the forms are sufficient as a matter of law … . Thus, the most that a court could require of a defendant pleading the statute of limitations is to state the applicable period of limitations, as set forth in Official Form 17. We acknowledge that Official Form 17 establishes a ceiling, not a floor. To be sure, a defendant whose answer pleads the “statute of limitations” and includes the applicable period of limitations will necessarily be in compliance with the official form, and courts must deem that pleading sufficient pursuant to CPLR 107 and CPLR 3013. Scholastic Inc. v Pace Plumbing Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03489, 1st Dept 4-28-15
In finding that plaintiff’s motion to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted (inadequate excuse for delay, misrepresentations made to the court), the First Department explained that Supreme Court should not have considered matters raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers. The court noted that special proceedings are subject to the same standards and rules as those applied to summary judgment motions:
As a matter of procedure, the motion court erred in entertaining arguments advanced for the first time in petitioners’ reply papers and in accepting their offer of new proof, unnecessarily protracting summary proceedings. As succinctly stated by this Court:
“It is settled that a special proceeding is subject to the same standards and rules of decision as apply on a motion for summary judgment, requiring the court to decide the matter upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised'” … .
We further held that where, as here, a petition is unsupported by sufficient evidentiary proof, the petitioning party will not be entitled to remedy those deficiencies …, thereby extending a procedure providing for summary disposition through “unnecessary and unauthorized elaboration” … . We have consistently stated that in proceedings subject to summary determination, no consideration is to be accorded to novel arguments raised in reply papers … . That this Court may, in the exercise of discretion, entertain such arguments upon review … does not endorse the unnecessary extension of summary proceedings. Under these circumstances, it was improvident to excuse petitioners’ deceit and grant their application to serve a late notice of claim. Matter of Gonzalez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03467, 1st Dept 4-28-15
The First Department determined that all the causes of action against Quest, a clinical laboratory which analyzed a Pap smear tissue sample, were subject to the two-and-one-half-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions (as opposed to the three-year statute for negligence actions generally). The complaint alleged Quest negligently misread the tissue sample. In addition, the complaint alleged regulatory infractions, i.e., no plan for error reduction and failure to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance. The court explained the relevant law:
It is settled that a negligent act or omission “that constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician constitutes malpractice” … . Laboratory services, such as Quest’s, performed at the direction of a physician are an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment … . Accordingly, a claim stemming from the rendition of such services is a medical malpractice claim … .
Plaintiffs however make additional claims that Quest failed to properly employ a plan for error reduction and failed to adequately implement, maintain or supervise quality assurance. These claims cannot be distinguished from allegations of medical malpractice. In applying the statute of limitations, courts must look to the reality or essence of a claim rather than its form … . The critical factor in distinguishing whether conduct may be deemed malpractice or ordinary negligence is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant allegedly breached … . The additional claims put forth in this case would not be actionable in the absence of the misreading of the tissue sample, the basis of the malpractice claim. All of the regulatory infractions alleged by plaintiffs bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment … . Annunziata v Quest Diagnostics Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03466, 1st Dept 4-28-15
In the course of determining an Article 78 petition which, in part, alleged that the Westchester County Human Rights Law violated state law, the Second Department noted that the challenge must be made in a declaratory judgment proceeding. The court could not convert the proceeding to one for a declaratory judgment because it did not have jurisdiction over all of the necessary parties—specifically the legislative body which enacted the challenged law:
…[T]he petitioners are, in effect, seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Westchester County Human Rights Law violate State law. However, the petitioners are not entitled to such relief. “A declaratory judgment action is the proper vehicle for challenging the validity of a legislative enactment” … . Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), this Court has the power to convert a proceeding into an action. However, that power is conditioned upon this Court having jurisdiction over all of the necessary parties … . “In a declaratory judgment action challenging a local law or ordinance, the legislative body that enacted the challenged local law or ordinance is a necessary party” … . Since the Westchester County Board of Legislators was not named as a party or joined in this proceeding, this Court cannot exercise its authority pursuant to CPLR 103(c) … . Matter of Hoffmann Invs. Corp. v Ruderman, 2015 NY Slip Op 03361, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department determined Supreme Court upheld the Court Referee’s determination that the plaintiff’s response to discovery demands were not adequate. Plaintiffs had provided a flash drive with 9000 documents and without any indication which of the documents related to the various demands. The Court Referee ordered the plaintiffs to “provide their discovery responses in a manner that allows the defendants ‘to know and understand’ which documents apply to their separate discovery demands.” H.P.S. Mgt. Co., Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 03320, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
In finding that the action for a declaratory judgment was properly dismissed, the Second Department explained that a declaratory judgment must be based upon a concrete dispute and may not be based upon merely hypothetical prejudice to the plaintiff. Without a concrete dispute, the action seeks an impermissible advisory opinion:
An action for a declaratory judgment must be supported by the existence of a justiciable controversy (see CPLR 3001…). There must be a genuine, concrete dispute between adverse parties, not merely the possibility of hypothetical, contingent, or remote prejudice to the plaintiff … .
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to allege the existence of a justiciable controversy in this case, relying instead upon a hypothetical injury which would be contingent upon the occurrence of events which may or may not come to pass at some point in the future. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an impermissible advisory opinion, and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint … . Premier Restorations of N.Y. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2015 NY Slip Op 03339, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department reversed a defense verdict in a slip and fall case. Chinsamy, the owner and operator of the defendant business which abutted the sidewalk where plaintiff slipped and fell, did not testify at trial. He had given a deposition about his knowledge of the condition of the sidewalk, which was read to the jury by plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s request for the missing witness jury instruction should not have been denied. Plaintiff was entitled to the instruction even though Chinsamy’s deposition testimony was placed in evidence. The court explained the relevant “missing witness charge” criteria:
A missing witness charge “instructs a jury that it may draw an adverse inference based on the failure of a party to call a witness who would normally be expected to support that party’s version of events. . . The preconditions for this charge, applicable to both criminal and civil trials, may be set out as follows: (1) the witness’s knowledge is material to the trial; (2) the witness is expected to give noncumulative testimony; (3) the witness is under the control’ of the party against whom the charge is sought, so that the witness would be expected to testify in that party’s favor; and (4) the witness is available to that party” … .
Under the circumstances, and considering Chinsamy’s unexplained failure to appear and testify at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s request for a missing witness charge … . In this regard, we note that the plaintiff’s use of Chinsamy’s deposition testimony does not constitute a waiver of her right to request a missing witness charge… . Alli v Full Serv. Auto Repair, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03308, 2nd Dept 4-22-15
The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s admission, contained in the hospital records, that he was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision was properly admitted at trial. Although the statement was not relevant to diagnosis or treatment, it was admissible because it contradicted plaintiff’s trial testimony (plaintiff testified he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident). However, Supreme Court should not have submitted the seat belt defense to the jury because there was no foundational testimony explaining precisely how wearing a seat belt would have minimized plaintiff’s injuries. The Second Department also noted plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction was properly denied because there was no showing the witness would have provided material, noncumulative testimony:
A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule only if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . However, if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is “evidence connecting the party to the entry” … . At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was using a seat belt at the time of the accident. The hospital records containing the challenged entries clearly indicated that the plaintiff was the source of the information contained therein … . Accordingly, the challenged entries were properly admitted into evidence.
Although the Supreme Court properly declined to redact the hospital record as requested by the plaintiff, the court nonetheless erred in submitting the seat belt defense to the jury, since the defendants failed to demonstrate, by competent evidence, that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been minimized had he been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident … . At trial, both of the plaintiff’s treating physicians testified in general terms that use of a seat belt can reduce the risk of injury. This evidence was insufficient to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof … . Robles v Polytemp, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03341, 2nd Dept 4-22-15