You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Black Letter Law Re: Rear-End Collisions and Premature Summary Judgment Motions Explained

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a rear-end collision case, the Second Department provided the black letter law on rear-end collisions and on whether a summary judgment motion is premature:

When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle … . Drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … . * * *

CPLR 3212(f) provides, in relevant part, that a court may deny a motion for summary judgment “[s]hould it appear from affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212[f]…). ” This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion’ ” … . A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant (see CPLR 3212[f]…). “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” … . Singh v Avis Rent A Car Sys Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05320, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

,

New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)

The Fourth Department determined New York’s “failure to wear a seatbelt” defense applied in an action stemming from an accident in Pennsylvania involving New York residents.  The court explained the operative criteria:

Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying her motion because New York’s seat belt affirmative defense regulates conduct, and thus does not apply in a tort dispute arising from an accident that occurred in Pennsylvania. We reject that contention. “Conduct-regulating rules have the prophylactic effect of governing conduct to prevent injuries from occurring” … . ” If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders’ ” … . Conversely, where the conflicting laws serve only to allocate losses between the parties, such as vicarious liability or comparative negligence rules, the jurisdiction where the tort occurred has only a minimal interest in applying its own law … .

Here, the conflicting laws relate to whether there is a valid affirmative defense of seat belt nonuse. Pennsylvania law prohibits the presentation of evidence of seat belt nonuse … , while New York law allows the trier of fact to consider a plaintiff’s failure to wear an available seat belt only in assessing damages and the plaintiff’s mitigation thereof … . We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that the seat belt defense “allocate[s] losses after the tort occurs” … . Lankenau v Patrick K Boles, M & S Leasing Co LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05255, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner (a School Administrator) Was Not Properly Served Upon a “School Officer”

The petitioner, an elementary school administrator, was terminated for misconduct after a hearing.  Petitioner then filed a petition to vacate the hearing officer’s (HO’s) decision.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition as untimely and improperly served.  The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petition was timely, but it was not properly served. The dissenters argued that the petition was not timely filed as well:

…[W]e conclude that the phrase “receipt of the hearing officer’s decision” in Education Law § 3020-a (5) (a) refers to the receipt of such decision from the SED [State Education Department]. We thus reject respondents’ contention that section 3020-a provides that the 10-day period in which to appeal runs from the receipt of the HO’s decision by email, not the receipt of the HO’s decision through mail sent by the SED. Rather, we agree with petitioner that, by concluding that the 10-day period to appeal commenced upon petitioner’s receipt of the HO’s decision by email, the court rendered the notification process contained in Education Law § 3020-a (4) superfluous.  * * *

…[W]e agree with the court that petitioner’s service of the petition was defective. The decision of the Second Department in Matter of Franz v Board of Educ. of Elwood Union Free Sch. Dist. (112 AD2d 934 …) is instructive. There, “[t]he notice of petition was personally delivered to [the] respondent [Board of Education]’s secretary,” whom the 2nd Department concluded was “not a school officer’ as set forth in . . . Education Law [§ 2 (13)]” (id. at 935). In support of that conclusion, the 2nd Department noted that “[t]he courts of this State have consistently required strict compliance with the statutory procedures for the institution of claims against the State and its governmental subdivisions, and where the Legislature has designated a particular public officer for the receipt of service of process, we are without authority to substitute another” … . We likewise conclude here that the payroll clerk employed in the District’s business office was not a “school officer” under the Education Law. Matter of Puchalski v Depew Union Free School Dist…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05271, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the First Action Precluded by Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that a prior ruling had res judicata effect even though the subsequent action sought damages for a different period of time:

Under the doctrine of 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” … , so long as “the party to be barred had a full and fair opportunity to litigate any cause of action arising out of the same transaction and the prior disposition was a final judgment on the merits” … . Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” … . Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” … .

Here, the record reflects that plaintiff had a full opportunity to litigate the issues relating to his small claim for unpaid wages in City Court and such court’s disposition was a final decision on the merits. It is also evident that the claim brought by plaintiff in City Court and the instant action arise out of the same series of transactions in connection with his work for defendants. Although the present action concerns wages allegedly owed for a different time period than the City Court claim, inasmuch as it had matured at the time that plaintiff commenced the prior action …, plaintiff could have also raised the current claim at that time … . Tovar v Tesoros Prop Mgt LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05233, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant under the long-arm statute and under federal due process principles:

In deciding whether an action may be maintained in New York against a nondomiciliary defendant, the court must first determine whether jurisdiction exists under New York’s long-arm statute (see CPLR 302) based upon the defendant’s contacts with this state; and, if it does, the court then determines “whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process” … . The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that such requirements have been met … .

Here, plaintiffs assert that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), which confers jurisdiction when a defendant commits a tortious act outside New York that causes injury to a person or property within the state and the defendant “expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce” … . *  *  *

Based on the record before us, we likewise find that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is compatible with federal due process standards. Generally, “a State may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over non-domiciliary defendants, provided they had certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” … . The relevant inquiry is whether a defendant “purposefully avai[led] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . Under the circumstances here, inasmuch as defendant targeted New York consumers through a network of distributors that rendered it likely that its products would be sold in New York, “it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [this state] if its allegedly defective merchandise has . . . been the source of injury to [a New York resident]” … . Darrow v Hectronic Deutschland, 2014 NY Slip Op 05239, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

,

Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion to Dismiss on that Ground/Process Server’s Testimony About Attempts to Locate Defendant Lacked Credibility

The Second Department determined the defendant did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by submitting a motion to dismiss on that ground.  The court further determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon the process server’s lack of credibility about his attempts to locate the defendant:

A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss … . A defendant may also waive lack of personal jurisdiction by entering into a stipulation of settlement of the action … . Additionally, a defendant may waive lack of personal jurisdiction by making payments pursuant to a judgment or wage garnishment for a substantial period of time …  However, where the defendant’s only participation in the action is the submission of a motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is not waived … . * * *

Service of process pursuant to the affix-and-mail provisions of CPLR 308(4) is only permitted where service by personal delivery under CPLR 308(1) or by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion and a subsequent mailing pursuant to CPLR 308(2) “cannot be made with due diligence” (CPLR 308[4]). ” For the purpose of satisfying the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment'” … . The process server’s testimony that he inquired as to the defendant’s whereabouts from a neighbor was not credible, since he was unable to provide any description of the neighbor—even a description of the neighbor’s sex. The affidavit of service referred to the “person spoken to,” but provided no further description, although spaces were provided to insert the person’s sex, skin color, hair color, approximate age, height, and weight.

The determination of the hearing court as to the credibility of the process server should not be disturbed since the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and listening to that witness. Cadlerock Joint Venture LP v Kierstedt, 2014 NY Slip Op 05147, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

Default for Failure to File Note of Issue Within 90 Days of Demand Properly Excused

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to file and note of issue after a 90-day demand, the Second Department noted the court’s discretion in this area:

Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), that plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period … . Here, the plaintiff failed to do either within the 90-day period. Therefore, in order to excuse his default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure to timely file the note of issue or move to either vacate the demand or extend the 90-day period, as well as a potentially meritorious cause of action … . The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the discretion of the motion court … .

Nevertheless, 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” … . Thus, “the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing a complaint based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay, and potentially a meritorious cause of action” …, but depending on the circumstances, a plaintiff is not always required to establish both a justifiable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action to avoid such a dismissal … .

In this case, the plaintiff demonstrated that he did not intend to abandon the action and that there were ongoing discovery proceedings conducted during the time period involved. Belson v Dix Hills AC Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05144, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)

The Second Department described the types of documents which will not support a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1):

“A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) will be granted only if the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim'” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)”… . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, an affidavit by a … project manager did not constitute documentary evidence with the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . JA Lee Elec Inc v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05159, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, , ,

Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade Secrets Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for discovery demanded of a non-party [Morgan Stanley] and described the relevant considerations when discovery is opposed on the ground that the material requested constitutes trade secrets.  The court concluded Morgan Stanley had demonstrated certain of the discovery requests related to protected trade secrets:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons” requiring disclosure. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals' recent decision in Matter of Kapon v Koch ( ____ NY3d ____, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327 [2014]), disclosure from a nonparty requires no more than a showing that the requested information is “material and necessary,” i.e. relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action (id., *1). However, “the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the circumstances or reasons' underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is utterly irrelevant' to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” (id.). Should the nonparty witness meet this burden, “the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary' to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant” (id.). * * *

Notwithstanding New York's policy of liberal discovery (see id., * 4-5), a party seeking disclosure of trade secrets must show that such information is “indispensable to the ascertainment of truth and cannot be acquired in any other way” … . A witness who objects to disclosure on the ground that the requested information constitutes a trade secret bears only a minimal initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a trade secret … . Contrary to [plaintiff's] contention, Morgan Stanley met its minimal initial burden of showing that the documents requested in paragraphs 11 through 19 in the section of the subpoena duces tecum entitled “Requests for Production” contained trade secrets … . Thus, the burden shifted to [plaintiff] to demonstrate that the information contained in those documents was indispensable to the ascertainment of truth, and could not be acquired in any other way … . Ferolito v Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05153, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

Rationale for Allowing a Late Motion for Summary Judgment When It Is Identical in Substance to a Timely Motion for Summary Judgment Made by Another Party Explained

The Second Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.  The court explained that an untimely motion may be entertained when it is identical in substance to a timely summary judgment motion made by another party in the action.  But that was not the case here.  The timely motion made by the MTA defendants, who were deemed not liable, did not determine the liability of the LIPA defendants.  Therefore, plaintiff’s untimely motion for summary judgment against the LIPA defendants could not “rely” on the motion made by the MTA defendants:

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was made more than 90 days after the filing of the note of issue, in violation of the terms of a certification order requiring motions for summary judgment to be filed within 90 days of the filing of a note of issue (see CPLR 3212[a]…). Although an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court, in the exercise of its discretion, where a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds …, that rule did not apply here. The reason why an untimely motion for summary judgment may be considered if another party made a motion on nearly identical grounds is that, pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), the court has the authority, on a motion for summary judgment, to search the record and award relief to a nonmoving party … . In the instant case, the MTA defendants, the original movants, established as a matter of law that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident. However, the fact that the MTA defendants were not at fault in the happening of the accident did not mean that the LIPA defendants were at fault and, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the LIPA defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the LIPA defendants should have been denied as untimely.  Williams v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 05172, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

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