You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Tenants Not Compelled to Bring a Plenary Action to Enforce a Fair Market Rent Appeal Award Because They Withheld Rent Until the Principal Balance of the Award Was Fully Credited to Them—Therefore Tenants Were Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a)

The Second Department determined tenants who had been awarded a rent refund in a fair market rent appeal (FMRA) were not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the award.  The tenants had exercised their right under the Rent Stabilization Code to withhold rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited.  Therefore, the tenants did not need to start a plenary action for prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) because there was no principal balance owing them:

“A tenant compelled to bring a plenary action to enforce a fair market rent appeal order is entitled to . . . prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001(a) computed from the date of the Rent Administrator’s order … ” … . However, where a tenant is not otherwise compelled to commence an action to enforce a fair market rent appeal award, the tenant is not entitled to recover interest on the award … . Prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs exercised their right under the relevant provision of the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR 2522.3[d][1]) to withhold payment of rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited to their account. The FMRA award was fully credited to the plaintiffs’ account by June 2007, after which the plaintiffs resumed paying rent. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations, there was no principal balance of the FMRA award due and owing to them. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not compelled to commence this action to enforce their FMRA award. Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they sought in the complaint, including the alleged principal balance, prejudgment interest, or an award of an attorney’s fee. Eisner v M & E Rubin LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03477, 2nd Dept 5-14-1

 

, ,

Complaint Pursuant to the “Whistleblower” Statute Need Not Identify the Particular Statute or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a complaint brought under the “whistleblower”  provision of the Labor Law (section 740) need not identify the particular statute or regulation alleged to have been violated by the employer:

Labor Law § 740 (2), commonly referred to as the “whistleblower statute,” provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee . . . discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation” that either “creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or . . . constitutes health care fraud” (Labor Law § 740 [2] [a]). The narrow issue on this appeal is whether a complaint asserting a claim under that provision must identify the specific “law, rule or regulation” allegedly violated by the employer. We conclude that there is no such requirement. * * *

To be sure, in order to recover under a Labor Law § 740 theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that an actual violation occurred, as opposed to merely establishing that the plaintiff possessed a reasonable belief that a violation occurred … . And, the violation must be of the kind that “creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety” … . However, for pleading purposes, the complaint need not specify the actual law, rule or regulation violated, although it must identify the particular activities, policies or practices in which the employer allegedly engaged, so that the complaint provides the employer with notice of the alleged complained-of conduct. Webb-Weber v Community Action for Human Servs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03428, CtApp 5-13-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Injured Falling Off Operating Table—Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Action Sounded in Medical Malpractice (Rendering It Untimely) or Negligence (Rendering It Timely)

The Third Department determined there was insufficient information in the record to determine whether plaintiff’s action sounded in negligence or medical malpractice.  Plaintiff was injured when she fell off the operating table.  The case hinged on whether the 2 1/2 year medical malpractice of the 3 year negligence statute of limitations applied. Supreme Court determined the medical malpractice statute applied and dismissed the complaint. The Third Department sent the matter back for the service of an amended complaint:

The sole issue here is whether the complaint sounds in medical malpractice such that it is subject to a 2½-year statute of limitations, which would make it untimely, or whether it alleges personal injury claims based on ordinary negligence that are subject to a three-year statute of limitations (compare CPLR 214-a, with CPLR 214 [5]). “Conduct may be deemed malpractice, rather than negligence, when it ‘constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician'” … .

The record here does not contain enough factual information to make such a determination. The complaint contains some language that generally refers to malpractice, such as that the “action arose from a surgery,” that plaintiff was “owed a duty by [d]efendants to use the due care of medical specialists in performing” the surgery, and that plaintiff fell after she “was extubated by the [a]nesthesiologist” or “while extubated by” him. While some of the medical records also indicate that plaintiff’s fall from the operating table may have been substantially related to the rendition of medical treatment, one medical note indicates that plaintiff rolled off the table due to the failure to remove an obstruction that prevented a stretcher from being placed next to the operating table. Plaintiff’s causes of action would sound in medical malpractice if she fell off the table due to improper pressure or movement in the removal of the breathing tube, or the failure to properly evaluate her safety and restraint needs while she was under anesthesia … .

On the other hand, her causes of action would sound in ordinary negligence if she never received any safety assessment, if the hospital staff failed to remove an obstruction between the operating table and stretcher and allowed her to fall between them, or if she was simply dropped by the staff members when they were transferring her from the operating table to the stretcher … . Newell v Ellis Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02992, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

, ,

Untimely ​Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Related Back to Timely Negligent Design Cause of Action—Motion to Amend Pleadings to Add Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Lessor of Heavy Equipment Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to assert a strict products liability cause of action against the lessor of heavy equipment.  Plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fallen from a slippery surface on the heavy equipment.  The court noted the untimely strict products liability claim was nearly identical to the negligent design cause of action which had been timely alleged:

A commercial lessor may be held liable, even in the absence of fault, for injuries caused by a defective product that the lessor is in the business of leasing … . Leave to amend is to be freely granted “at any time,” so long as there is no prejudice or surprise to the other party (CPLR 3025 [b]…), “and the amendment is not plainly lacking in merit” … .

Although plaintiffs did not seek to amend the complaint until four years after the commencement of the action, [defendant] has not identified any actual prejudice or valid claim of surprise. The proposed amendment is not based on new facts and there is “almost no difference” between negligence and strict products liability claims based on defective design … . Given the functionally synonymous nature of the claims, we conclude that the complaint provided adequate notice of the necessary elements and the proposed amendment relates back to the timely interposition of the negligence claim (see CPLR 203 [f]…). Furthermore, the strict products liability claim cannot be said to be plainly lacking in merit as plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a certified safety professional who opined that the slippery surface of the excavator was unreasonably dangerous, described why and explained how it could have been made safer … . Stokes v Komatsu Am Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02997, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

,

Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court improperly denied defendant’s [Eastern Athletic’s] motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff had fallen off an exercise ball during an exercise class.  The Second Department found plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court ruled the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant were inadmissible because they were not certified, a ground that had not been raised by the parties.  The Second Department held that a dispositive motion can not be denied on a ground that was not raised by the parties:

Here, the Supreme Court denied the subject motion for summary judgment on a ground that the parties did not litigate. The parties did not have an opportunity to address the issue relating to the certification of the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying that dispositive motion. The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process. It is significant that, in Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 519), the Court of Appeals cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” (id. at 519).

The Supreme Court erred in denying Eastern Athletic’s motion for summary judgment by deciding that the plaintiff’s deposition transcript was uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, where that ground of admissibility was not raised by the plaintiff herself. Notably, the plaintiff’s deposition transcript recites that the plaintiff was duly sworn. Moreover, in civil cases, “inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection may be considered and given such probative value as, under the circumstances, it may possess” … .

Had the plaintiff argued in opposition to Eastern Athletic’s motion that her deposition transcript was inadmissible because it was uncertified, Eastern Athletic could have submitted a certification in its reply papers and, if the plaintiff were not prejudiced, the Supreme Court may have considered it … . Eastern Athletic’s failure to submit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the plaintiff’s deposition was an irregularity and, as no substantial right of a party was prejudiced, the court should have ignored the defect (see CPLR 2001). Rosenblatt v St George Health & Racqetball Assoc LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02917, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, ,

Shortened Statute of Limitations in Policy Enforced

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the shortened statute of limitations in the insurance policy was enforceable:

“The parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations. Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … . “Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentation in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to” … .

* * * The plaintiff did not offer evidence that the defendant’s conduct lulled him into inactivity based on a belief that his claim would ultimately be processed, or that he was “induced by fraud, misrepresentation or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action” … .  John v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02905, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained

The Second Department, in finding Supreme Court properly denied the petition against a judge, explained the criteria for prohibition and mandamus actions:

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court —in cases where judicial authority is challenged —acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” … . “Prohibition will not lie, however, simply to correct trial errors” … and may not be employed as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, no matter how egregious the error might be … .

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought” … . Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment … . Matter of Jordan v Levine, 2014 NY Slip Op 02934, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Email Acknowledging Debt Raised Question of Fact About Whether Period of Limitations Was Restarted by the Email

The Second Department determined an e-mail acknowledging plaintiff’s entitlement to a commission raised a triable issue of fact about whether the statute of limitations was restarted:

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the applicable six-year statute of limitations expired before the plaintiff commenced this action (see CPLR 213…). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether an email message, purportedly sent by the defendant …, acknowledged the plaintiff’s entitlement to a brokerage commission and demonstrated the defendants’ intent to pay it, thus restarting the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101…). ” Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case'” … . Here, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue. Georg Tsunis Real Estate Inc v Benedict, 2014 NY Slip Op 02899, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, , ,

Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim

In a detailed opinion by Justice Moskowitz, the First Department methodically went through the issues raised in a trial stemming from the breakdown of a partnership including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. In the course of the opinion, the court noted that inclusion of a cause of action and counterclaim for rescission constituted a waiver of a jury trial:

Defendants next assert that the trial court improperly struck their jury demand in Action 1. This argument has no merit. Because defendants’ demand for the equitable remedy of rescission in Action 2 was not “incidental” to that action, and their demand for rescission was not “incidental” to their counterclaims in Action 1, defendants effectively waived their right to a jury trial by joining those demands with claims for legal relief … . In addition, defendants argued that rescission of the partnership’s license agreements … was “the core” of their claims in both actions, and defendants all asserted, as part of their Action 1 counterclaims, that they had “no adequate remedy at law.” New Media Holding Co LLC v Kagalovsky, 2014 NY Slip Op 02888, 1st Dept 4-29-14

 

,

Insurance Law 5214 Does Not Apply Where Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Is Sued Directly Because the Identity of the Driver Who Caused Plaintiff’s Injury Is Unknown/Default Judgment Against MVAIC Properly Entered

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-radix, determined Supreme Court had properly entered a default judgment against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC).  Plaintiff was a pededstrian who was allegedly struck by a driver who drove plaintiff to the hospital but then left without identifying himself.  Because the driver was unknown, plaintiff sued MVAIC directly pursuant to Insurance Law 5218.  MVAIC argued that Insurance Law 5214 prohibited the entry of a default judgment against it.  The Second Department determined Insurance Law 5214 did not apply, and a default judgment was properly entered against the MVAIC pursuant to CPLR 5015:

This case does not fall within the scope of Insurance Law § 5214 because it does not involve a claim against MVAIC stemming from a judgment entered upon the default or consent of an uninsured defendant. Rather, MVAIC was involved because the identity of the offending motorist was unknown, which permitted the plaintiff, with the approval of the court, to commence an action against MVAIC directly, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218. Insurance Law § 5218 authorizes a court to permit the commencement of an action against MVAIC directly, if, inter alia, “all reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and of the owner and operator and either the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner and operator cannot be established, or the identity of the operator, who was operating the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, cannot be established” (Insurance Law § 5218[b][5]…). Where an action is commenced directly against MVAIC, the concerns underlying the enactment of Insurance Law § 5214—protecting MVAIC from the defaults of, or possible collusion by, uninsured defendants—are not implicated. Thus, Insurance Law § 5214 “does not bar the entry of a default judgment against MVAIC in an action in which MVAIC is the named defendant and has defaulted” … .  Archer v Motor Veh Acc Indem Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02732, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

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