Evidence Which Is “Material and Necessary” in the Context of Discovery Is Much Broader in Scope than Evidence Which Is Admissible at Trial

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that Supreme Court should have allowed discovery of documents relating to a prior steam pipe explosion (in Texas) in the instant proceeding, which also involves a steam pipe explosion. Defendant Con Ed sought the records of defendant Team Industrial Services, Inc. (Team), which applied pipe sealant where both explosions occurred, alleging that the pipe sealant application caused the explosions. The dissent felt the Appellate Division should defer to Supreme Court’s finding, made after an extensive review of the Texas records, that the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to warrant discovery. The First Department explained that the criteria for the reach of discovery is broad and goes beyond what might be admissible at trial:

The words “material and necessary,” as used in CPLR 3101(a) are “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure . . . of any facts bearing on the controversy” … . “The weight to be given evidence of other [lawsuits or claims] on the issues of notice and causation, and indeed the very admissibility of such evidence . . . are not of concern in the context of disclosure” … .

In our view, the motion court applied too harsh a standard in determining that documents concerning the prior … incident are not discoverable. We are not concerned with the ultimate admissibility of the evidence at trial, but with the discovery of information concerning the prior incident, as to which a more liberal standard applies … . Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave., 2015 NY Slip Op 03269, 1st Dept 4-21-15

 

,

In an Appeal from an Order Made Upon Appellant’s Default, Only Matters Contested Below Can Be Heard—Here the Only Matter Contested Below Was Appellants’ Request for an Adjournment to Obtain New Counsel—Relevant Review Criteria Explained

The Second Department noted that in an appeal from an order made upon the appellant’s default, the only issues which can be reviewed are those which were contested below.  Here only appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel was contested, therefore that was the only issue the appellate court could consider.  The court determined the denial of the adjournment request was not an abuse of discretion.  “In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .” The court noted the appellants’ lack of cooperation with their second counsel and their consent to second counsel’s being relieved:

Where, as here, the order appealed from was made upon the appellants’ default, “review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below” … . Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the appellants’ request for an adjournment … .

The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the court … , and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … . In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .

Applying these principles here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel after their second counsel was relieved, as second counsel requested that the appellants permit it to be relieved of the obligation of representation, based on the appellants’ lack of cooperation with second counsel, and the appellants thereupon voluntarily consented to second counsel’s request … . Hawes v Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 03127, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

, , ,

Although the Doctor Was Employed by the Hospital, His Employment Did Not Encompass His Medical Practice—Therefore the Hospital Was Not Liable for the Doctor’s Medical Malpractice Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior/$6.8 Million Verdict Against the Doctors Based Upon a Delay in Diagnosing Cancer Should Not Have Been Set Aside

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint against the hospital in a medical malpractice case, but improperly set aside the $6.8 million verdict against the doctors.  Plaintiff alleged the doctors caused a 13-month delay in the diagnosis of cancer, which required her to have extensive surgery and reduced her chance of survival.  The suit against the hospital was based upon respondeat superior. However the employment contract between the doctor, Aloia, and the hospital related to duties other than Aloia’s treatment of patients.  Therefore the complaint against the hospital was properly dismissed after trial pursuant to CPLR 4401. The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations and, therefore, the verdict against the doctors should stand.  “…[T]here was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have rationally concluded that the physician defendants departed from good and accepted medical practice, and that the delay in diagnosing the injured plaintiff’s cancer proximately caused her to have a worsened prognosis or decreased 10-year survival rate:”

To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” … . “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee while acting within the scope of employment. The general rule is that an employee acts within the scope of his employment when he is acting in furtherance of the duties owed to the employer and where the employer is or could be exercising some degree of control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities” … . Although the issue is usually a factual issue for the jury, “[w]here the proof on the issue of control presents no conflict in evidence or is undisputed, the matter may properly be determined as a matter of law” … .

Here, there was no real dispute as to the employment arrangement between Aloia and [the hospital] as set forth in the clear and unambiguous employment contract … . Aloia’s employment contract permitted him to maintain his private practice in endocrinology, as well as internal medicine and bone densitometry, outside of his employment with [the hospital]. * * *

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR . . . 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” … . “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … . Luna v Spadafora, 2015 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

, ,

Failure to Submit Lease to Show No Contractual Obligation to Remove Ice And Snow Precluded Summary Judgment to Defendant Out-of-Possession Landlord—Evidence First Submitted in Reply Papers Properly Not Considered

The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because it did not submit the lease and therefore did not demonstrate the absence of any obligation to remove ice and snow.  The court noted that it could not consider evidence presented for the first time in reply papers:

An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . Here, the plaintiff did not allege that the landlord’s duty was statutory or based on a course of conduct. Thus, to prevail on its motion, [defendant] was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had not retained control over the premises, or that it had no contractual duty to remove snow and ice from the area where the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. [Defendant] failed to sustain this burden because it failed to submit a copy of the lease between it and the entity that was the tenant of the subject premises at the time of the accident … .  Poole v MCPJF, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03142, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE A Stay Which Was to Last “45 Days from the Service” of an Order Never Expired Because the Order Was Never Served/Argument that the Stay Never Started Because the Order Was Not Served Rejected

While defendant’s motion for summary judgment was pending, plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw. The motion was granted and the court ordered the case stayed “for 45 days from the service…” of the order dismissing plaintiff’s attorney.  Plaintiff was not served with the order and defendant’s summary judgment motion was subsequently granted in plaintiff’s absence.  The First Department determined that the orders issued pursuant to the summary judgment motion were a nullity.  The 45 day stay never expired because the order granting the stay was never served on the plaintiff.  The defendant’s argument that the stay never started because the order was not served was rejected:

After his former counsel was granted leave to withdraw, the action was stayed by court order and operation of CPLR 321(c). Because Plaintiff was never served with the order dismissing his attorney, the 45 day stay never expired. Defendant cannot avoid the stay by arguing that it did not go into effect until served on plaintiff, since the failure to serve the order cannot accrue to defendant’s benefit.  Matos v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 03074, 1st Dept 4-14-15

 

Although the Agreements at Issue Set Up an Investment Fund (Targeting Brazil) in the Cayman Islands, the Fact that the Agreements Were Negotiated, Drafted and Executed in New York Conferred Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Fund

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a partial dissent, determined that the complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant investment fund.  Although the agreements in question set up the investment fund in the Cayman Islands, targeting investments in Brazil, the agreements were negotiated, drawn up and executed in New York.  Because the claims arose “from defendants’ transaction of business in New York, CPLR 302(a)(1) confer[red] personal jurisdiction over defendants.” The court explained that “[d]etermining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists under the “transacts business” provision of CPLR 302(a)(1) … is a two-pronged inquiry: “a court must decide (1) whether the defendant transacts any business in New York and, if so, (2) whether [the] cause of action aris[es] from such a business transaction” … . [In addition] [t]he assertion of personal jurisdiction must … be predicated on a defendant’s “minimal contacts” with New York to comport with due process … :”

Under New York’s long-arm jurisdiction statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who . . . transacts any business within the state” (CPLR 302[a][1]). “By this single act statute . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction . . . so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Determining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists under the “transacts business” provision of CPLR 302(a)(1), therefore, is a two-pronged inquiry: “a court must decide (1) whether the defendant transacts any business in New York and, if so, (2) whether [the] cause of action aris[es] from such a business transaction” … . “In effect, the arise-from’ prong limits the broader transaction-of-business’ prong to confer jurisdiction only over those claims in some way arguably connected to the transaction” … .

The assertion of personal jurisdiction must also be predicated on a defendant’s “minimal contacts” with New York to comport with due process … . This requires an examination of the “quality and the nature of the defendant’s activity” and a finding of “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff alleges that Citibank’s lawyers drafted the documents in New York. … “[T]he nature and purpose of a solitary business meeting conducted for a single day in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary to subject a nonresident participant to the jurisdiction of our courts” … . [The drafting of the agreements] was not a “purely ministerial” act of merely executing a contract in New York that had been negotiated elsewhere, which would likely be insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction … . * * *

Finding that New York courts have personal jurisdiction over defendants in this case also comports with due process. “So long as a party avails itself of the benefits of the forum, has sufficient minimum contacts with it, and should reasonably expect to defend its actions there, due process is not offended if that party is subjected to jurisdiction . . . …. . Such is the case before us. Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with New York by purposefully entering the state to negotiate and execute contracts … . Wilson v Dantas, 2015 NY Slip Op 03088, 1st Dept 4-14-15

Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in a medical malpractice case after the jury had found “no cause for action.”  A rule in the Third Judicial District allowed the clerk to randomly select the jurors and alternates.  The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the first six jurors chosen by the parties were not empanelled by the clerk, as required by CPLR 4105.  Under the CPLR jurors 1 through 6 should have constituted the jury and jurors 7 and 8 should have been designated the alternate jurors. The clerk selected jurors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.  The Third Department perceived no abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict:

After having determined that its application of the Third Judicial District rule contravened plaintiff’s substantial right to empanel the first six jurors that had been selected by the parties, pursuant to the “mandatory procedure” set forth in CPLR 4105, Supreme Court exercised its discretion and granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial in the interest of justice. In the absence of evidence that the court abused such discretion, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination in that regard … . Piacente v Bernstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03009, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

,

Venue Was Not Proper—However, Because the Party Seeking the Change of Venue Did Not Comply With the Statutory Procedure, Whether to Grant a Change of Venue Was Discretionary—In the Exercise of Discretion, Change of Venue Was Properly Denied

Respondent law firm filed a default judgment prematurely (re: attorney’s fees) and immediately took steps freeze petitioner’s assets. Petitioner started the instant proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240 seeking a protective order and vacation of all the enforcement devices used by the law firm.  The law firm made a cross-motion for a change of venue. Supreme Court denied the cross-motion, found that the law firm had engaged in frivolous conduct, directed the law firm to pay petitioner costs and counsel fees, and ordered the managing attorney of the law firm to complete eight hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in civil practice.  The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court, with the exception of the CLE sanction, which Supreme Court did not have the authority to order. The bulk of the decision is devoted to a discussion of the law surrounding a change of venue.  Supreme Court denied the change of venue cross-motion “as of right,” finding that Ulster County was the proper venue for the CPLR 5240 proceeding brought by the petitioner.  The Third Department disagreed, ruling that Ulster County was not the proper venue because the law firm, the respondent in the proceeding, did not have an office in Ulster County as required by the relevant provisions of the CPLR. But, after an extensive analysis, the Third Department concluded the cross-motion to change venue was properly denied as an exercise of discretion. Because the respondent did not follow the statutory procedure (CPLR 511) for seeking a change of venue (no demand for such relief was served before the cross-motion was made), the cross-motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion. CPLR 510 allows a change of venue where “(1) the designated county is not a proper county, (2) “there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county” or (3) “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change”… .  Although the first criterium was met, the other two were not. Denial of the cross-motion was a proper exercise of discretion:

By failing to comply with the statutory procedure for changing venue, respondent was not entitled to a change of venue as of right. Where a respondent believes that a petitioner has chosen an improper venue, the respondent shall serve, with or before service of the answer, a written demand on the petitioner that venue be changed to a county that the respondent specifies as proper (see CPLR 511 [a], [b]). The petitioner has five days after service of the demand to serve a written consent to change venue (see CPLR 511 [b]). If no such consent is served by the petitioner, the respondent must move to change venue within 15 days of service of the demand (see CPLR 511 [b]). If a respondent fails to comply with these procedures and time limits, the respondent is not entitled to have the motion granted as of right, even if the venue was improper; the motion instead becomes one addressed to the court’s discretion… ). Here, respondent served a cross motion seeking to change venue without having first served a demand for such relief. Accordingly, the motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion… . * * *

Petitioners commenced this proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240, which provides that “[t]he court may at any time, on . . . the motion of any interested person, . . . make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure.” If a judgment that is sought to be enforced was entered in Supreme Court anywhere in New York, “a special proceeding authorized by [CPLR article 52] shall be commenced, either in the supreme court or a county court, in a county in which the respondent resides or is regularly employed or has a place for the regular transaction of business in person,” if such a county exists in the state (CPLR 5221 [a] [4]). CPLR 5240 is found within CPLR article 52, and the Court of Appeals has stated that a request for court action under CPLR 5240 is properly commenced as a “special proceeding” … . Respondent, by its very designation in the caption, is the “respondent” as mentioned in CPLR 5221 (a). Respondent is a law firm with its main office in Oswego County, which is considered its residence (see CPLR 503 [c]), and no office or place of business in Ulster County. Under a plain reading of CPLR 5221 (a), the instant special proceeding was required to be commenced in Oswego County (or another county in New York where respondent has an office where it regularly transacts business), rather than Ulster County.* * *

Thus, as Oswego County, rather than Ulster County, is the proper venue under either subdivision of CPLR 5221, the first ground under CPLR 510 could support respondent’s discretionary motion to change venue.

The second ground for discretionary change of venue does not support a change, as the record contains no information that an impartial trial would be difficult to obtain in Oswego County. As for the third ground, petitioners asserted that they are residents of Ulster County and the banks that were served the restraining notices and information subpoenas are all in or around Ulster County, so numerous material witnesses appear to be located in that county. Additionally, it appears that the ends of justice would not be promoted by changing venue. In sum, the first ground would support changing venue, while the second and third grounds do not. Although Supreme Court erred in denying respondent’s cross motion as of right, in the exercise of our discretion we reach the same conclusion. Matter of Aaron v The Steele Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 03018, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Law of the Case Doctrine Should Not Have Been Invoked—Criteria Explained

In a breach of contract action, Supreme Court ruled on a summary judgment motion, finding it premature.  When a second summary judgment motion was made before a different judge, the new judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability for breach of contract and noted that the first order required the ruling because it was the “law of the case.” Although the Third Department ultimately upheld the breach of contract finding, the appellate court explained that the “law of the case” doctrine did not apply because the first order merely found there were issues of fact concerning the amount owed plaintiff and did not determine there was a breach of contract. The court explained that the doctrine of “law of the case” only applies to a ruling upon a “question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter”… :

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court was required to rule that defendants were liable for breaching the Agreement by the doctrine of the law of the case, which bars courts from reconsidering “pre-judgment rulings made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction” in the same case … . The doctrine applies only when the prior ruling directly passed upon a question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter …. . Here, the only determination made in the 2012 order was that material issues of fact existed as to the amount owed. Although additional remarks were made in that order, these were merely dicta, and did not constitute a legal determination as to whether defendants breached the Agreement by deducting expenses — an issue that was not directly addressed by the 2012 order … . Karol v Polsinello, 2015 NY Slip Op 03024, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Failure to Provide Statutory Notice of a Motion to Enter a Default Judgment to a Defendant Who Has Appeared in the Case Is a Jurisdictional Defect Rendering the Default Judgment a Nullity

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined the failure to give a defendant, who has appeared in an action, notice of a motion to enter a default judgment is a defect which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction (rendering the default judgment a nullity pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4)).  The issue is one of first impression in the Second Department and the Second Department declined to follow a contrary ruling in the 3rd Department. When the defendant previously appeared in the case, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failure to answer the complaint. Therefore, although the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice required by CPLR 3215 (g) (1) mandated vacatur of the default judgment, it did not, under the facts, relieve the appellant of the underlying default. Upon notice of a future motion to enter a default judgment, the defendant here may contest only the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the motion and the amount of damages:

The question of whether vacatur of the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) is appropriate where the moving party fails to notify the defendant of its motion for leave to enter a default judgment as provided by CPLR 3215(g)(1) is one of first impression in this Court. Under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a rendering court may relieve a moving party of such an order if it lacked the jurisdiction to render it in the first place. Here, it is uncontested that the Supreme Court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant, as well as jurisdiction over the subject matter in this case. However, for the reasons set forth below, we hold that the failure of the plaintiffs to give notice to the appellant of their motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1) deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and the court should have vacated the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4). * * *

…[W]e hold that the failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment. While this defect requires vacatur of the judgment, it does not, standing alone, entitle the appellant to be relieved of the underlying default upon which judgment is sought, and to defend the action on the merits … . Since the appellant has failed to establish a basis to be relieved from his underlying default in failing to answer, that underlying default remains intact. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled only to statutory notice of any future motion for leave to enter a default judgment. Upon such a future motion, the appellant may not seek to relitigate the issue of whether he is entitled to be relieved of his underlying default in failing to answer. Rather, as relevant to this case, the appellant may oppose entry of a default judgment to the limited extent of contesting the sufficiency of the proof of facts submitted by the plaintiffs in support of the motion, and contesting damages.  Paulus v Christopher Vacirca, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02944, 2nd Dept 4-8-15