You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Successive Summary Judgment Motions OK Based On Evidence Learned in Discovery

The Third Department noted that successive summary judgment motions are allowed where discovery turns up new evidence.  In this case summary judgment was granted to the defendants who were struck by plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle which had crossed over into on-coming traffic:

Although successive summary judgment motions are generally discouraged absent “‘a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause'” …, where, as here, evidence produced from additional discovery places the motion court “in a far better position to determine” a legally dispositive issue, the court should not be precluded from exercising its discretion to consider the merits of a subsequent motion … . Foster v Kelly, 2014 NY Slip Op 05472, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

,

Criteria for Determining a Motion to Amend the Pleadings Explained

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, the Second Department explained the criteria for determining the motion:

“Applications for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment (1) would unfairly prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or (2) is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … .

“No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)” … . “The court need only determine whether the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient’ to state a cause of action or defense, or is patently devoid of merit” (id.). “[A] court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless such insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” … . Favia v Harley-Davidson Motor Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05408, 2nd Dept 7=23=14

 

Extremely Forgiving Nature of CPLR 3216 (Dismissal for Neglect to Prosecute) Explained

The Second Department noted the “extremely forgiving” nature of CPLR 3216 in affirming Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for neglect to prosecute:

CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving” … in that it “never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . While the statute prohibits the Supreme Court 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 meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…), such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action … . Altman v Donnenfeld, 2014 NY Slip Op 05402, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

, , , , , ,

County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, determined that the plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) had standing to bring a negligence/nuisance/trespass/products liability action against defendants alleging contamination of wells caused by chemicals (PCE and TCE).  However, the court determined the action was barred as untimely by CPLR 214-c.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained what the “two-injury” rule is in the context of a continuing wrong.  The court determined that CPLR 214-c was designed to eliminate the continuing-wrong statute of limitations calculation in contamination cases.  In addition, the court explained the difference between latent and patent injuries with respect to CPLR 214-c:

Generally, a plaintiff has standing to sue if it has suffered an injury in fact … in some way different from that of the public at large and within the zone of interests to be protected by relevant statutory and regulatory provisions … .

We reject the movants’ contention that the SCWA lacked standing to seek damages for injury to 115 wells where the PCE contamination level fell below the MCL (federal and state “maximum contamination level” for PCE). The MCL is only a regulatory standard which governs conduct in supplying water to the public. While the MCL may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred, the MCL does not set a bar below which an injury cannot have occurred … . Similarly, the MCL does not define whether an injury has occurred, since contamination below that level could result in some injury, such as increased monitoring costs … . It is undisputed that the SCWA has expended resources in its effort to address the widespread contamination, even at wells where the contamination has not risen to or exceeded the MCL. Thus, the SCWA has alleged that it has suffered an injury for which it may seek redress, irrespective of the level of contamination. * * *

CPLR 214-c was enacted in 1986 to ameliorate the effect of a line of cases which held that toxic tort claims accrued upon the impact or exposure to the substance, even though the resulting injury or illness did not manifest itself until some time later … . CPLR 214-c provides for a three-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property “caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property” (CPLR 214-c[2]). The three-year period is “computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-c[2]…). For the purposes of CPLR 214-c, “discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Suffolk County Water Auth v Dow Chem Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05420, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

,

No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding Is an Adulterated Food

The Third Department determined petitioner [Stahlie] did not have standing to bring an action contending that foie gras produced by force feeding ducks or geese was an adulterated food which causes secondary amyloidosis:

Standing “requir[es] that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy” … . Petitioners have “the burden of establishing both an injury in fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated” … . The injury in fact element must be based on more than conjecture or speculation … . * * *

Here, the risk of exposure is minimal and the indication of harm uncertain. Although petitioners included expert opinion indicating a possible risk of secondary amyloidosis from foie gras for some individuals with certain medical conditions, they cite no situation of any person ever suffering secondary amyloidosis that was linked to foie gras. Stahlie does not contend that he has any of the underlying medical conditions that may be related to an increased risk of secondary amyloidosis. His exposure to foie gras is infrequent. There are no studies, statements or warnings by the regulating agency or other pertinent governmental entity regarding a relevant risk related to the occasional consumption of foie gras. Stahlie has, at best, occasional exposure to a product that has not yet been connected by any actual case to the purported risk of harm alleged by petitioners. We agree with Supreme Court that, even affording petitioners the benefit of every favorable inference, their allegations regarding an injury in fact to Stahlie are speculative and rest upon conjecture. Matter of Animal Defense Fund Inc v Aubertine, 2014 NY Slip Op 05395, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

, ,

Equitable Estoppel Against NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Not Available Under the Facts

The Third Department determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied to a statute of limitations defense raised by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).  The petitioner’s president [Sage] alleged he was told by an employee of the DEC [Lynch] that he need not comply with the 30 day time limit for challenging the DEC’s approval of a Freshwater Wetlands permit:

It is axiomatic that the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot generally be invoked against governmental agencies in the exercise of their governmental function … . However, estoppel may apply in certain “exceptional cases in which there has been a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or similar affirmative misconduct, along with reasonable reliance thereon” … .

Here, less than 30 days after the permit was issued, Sage spoke with Lynch regarding petitioner’s plans to challenge the permit. According to Sage, Lynch explained that he was not adequately familiar with the permit and needed to review the matter. Sage “believe[d]” that it was during this conversation that Lynch told him that petitioner did not need to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding within 30 days of the issuance of the permit because petitioner had four months to bring a challenge, which would give Lynch time to review it. Although Lynch acknowledged having spoken to Sage about the permit, he denied telling Sage that the applicable statute of limitations was four months or that the limitations period would be extended. Indeed, Lynch averred that he had no authority to waive or extend the applicable statute of limitations on behalf of DEC, and the statement that petitioner attributes to Lynch was, at best, akin to erroneous advice that does not rise to the level necessary to implicate the exception where estoppel may be invoked against a governmental agency… . Matter of Atlantic States Legal Found Inc v NYS Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 05384, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

, ,

Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have a Preclusive Effect Upon a Subsequent Employment Discrimination Action Based on the Same Facts

The Second Department noted that an arbitration award based upon the terms of a collective bargaining agreement does not bar a subsequent employment discrimination action under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Here the employee was terminated based upon excessive absences.  He subsequently  brought a discrimination action alleging the employee failed to accommodate his disability.  (The Second Department determined the “disability” alleged by the employee did not require accommodation):

An arbitrator’s award may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent judicial proceeding … . However, arbitration is an inappropriate forum for the disposition of an employment discrimination claim where “the arbitrator’s sole task is to effectuate the intent of the parties in connection with the collective-bargaining agreement, and not to consider a statutory claim of discrimination . . . The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” … . Thus, the arbitrator’s decision did not have preclusive effect on the plaintiff’s separate action based on unlawful discrimination in employment …, and the complaint is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Caban v New York Methodist Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05292, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Which Is Nearly Identical to a Summary Judgment Motion Already Before the Court Should Be Considered

The Second Department explained when an untimely summary judgment motion, which is nearly identical to a timely summary judgment motion already before the court, should be considered:

While the cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was facially untimely …, an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds … . “In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely cross motion are already properly before the motion court and, thus, the nearly identical nature of the grounds may provide the requisite good cause (see CPLR 3212 [a]) to review the merits of the untimely cross motion. Notably, a court, in deciding the timely motion, may search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party” (…see CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have entertained the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Wernicki v Knipper, 2014 NY Slip Op 05324, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

Transactional Res Judicata Analysis Explained

In determining a motion to amend the answer was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, the Second Department wrote:

“[U]nder New York's transactional analysis approach to res judicata, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . “In determining whether a factual grouping constitutes a transaction for res judicata purposes, a court must apply a pragmatic test and analyze how the facts are related as to time, space, origin or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether treating them as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding” … . Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, 2014 NY Slip Op 05335, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

,

Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency Precluded Dismissal Based Upon the Statute of Limitations Defense

In the course of a decision finding the Commissioner of Health had properly determined Medicaid reimbursement rates for residential health care facilities, the Third Department determined ambiguity about when a final decision had been made precluded dismissal based on the statute of limitations defense:

“[W]hen an administrative body itself creates ambiguity and uncertainty” concerning the finality of a determination, however, “affected [parties] should not have to risk dismissal for prematurity or untimeliness by necessarily guessing when a final and binding determination has or has not been made. Under these circumstances, ‘the courts should resolve any ambiguity created by the public body against it in order to reach a determination on the merits and not deny a party his [or her] day in court'”… . Matter of Adirondack Med Center-Uihlein v Daines, 2014 NY Slip Op 05386, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

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