You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Village’s Unauthorized Use of Dedicated Park Land Prohibited by the “Public Trust Doctrine”—Village’s Use of the Land Was a “Continuing Wrong” Which Tolled the Statute of Limitations and Precluded the Application of the Laches Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly granted a permanent injunction, pursuant to the common law “public trust doctrine,” prohibiting the village from building public works structures on dedicated park land.  The action was brought by residents who live near the park, who were later joined by the state.  Because the park land had been used without legislative authority by the village for many decades, the village argued the action was prohibited by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.  The Court of Appeals determined the “continuing wrong doctrine” tolled the statute of limitations and the laches doctrine did not apply to a continuing wrong, or to actions by the state:

The harm sustained by the public when structures having “no connection with park purposes . . . encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred” … cannot be traced exclusively to the day when the illegal encroachment began. “In New York, we have consistently characterized an unlawful encroachment as a continuous trespass giving rise to successive causes of action” … . Even though here, because the Village owns the parkland, the encroachment is not trespass, it clearly bears the hallmark of continuity common to the trespass cases: defendants are, continuously, in violation of the public trust doctrine and able to abate that wrong. Just as the failure of a landlord to repair a building's common elements, in violation of by-laws, “constituted a continuing wrong that is not referable exclusively to the day the original wrong was committed” … and “[t]he alleged violation of defendants' contractual obligations to comply with the law and refrain from interfering with the rights of other lessees amounts to a continuous or recurring wrong” …, so does a municipality's ongoing failure to comply with the law and seek legislative authorization for non-park use of parkland. The harm does not consist of the lingering effects of a single, discrete incursion, but rather is a continuous series of wrongs. In short, the claim here is “predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct” …  Capruso v Village of Kings Point, 2014 NY Slip Op 04228, CtApp 5-12-14

 

, ,

Plaintiffs in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases Are Not Required to Hire an Expert to Link Injuries to Lead-Paint Exposure at the CPLR 3121 (a) Discovery Stage—However, Plaintiffs Must Provide Medical Reports Which Include a “Recital of the Injuries and Conditions as to which Testimony Will Be Offered at the Trial”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, reversed the appellate division and determined the trial judge abused his discretion in the discovery phase of a lead-paint exposure case.  The trial judge ordered the plaintiffs “to produce, prior to the defense medical examinations, medical reports detailing a diagnosis of each injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs and causally relating those injuries to plaintiffs' exposure to lead-based paint.”

CPLR 3121 (a) provides that when a party's mental or physical condition is in issue, any other party may serve on the party whose condition is in controversy notice “to submit to a physical, mental or blood examination by a designated physician.” A noticed party then is obligated under 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b)(1) to deliver:

“copies of the medical reports of those medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery. These shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial, referring to and identifying those X-ray and technicians reports which will be offered at the trial, including a description of the injuries, a diagnosis and a prognosis.”

In most personal injury cases, disclosure under this rule is straightforward. The injured plaintiff goes to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The doctor drafts a report. The plaintiff turns over the report to the defendant.

This case is more complicated. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as children. Now adults, plaintiffs allege that their childhood exposure to lead caused them numerous injuries. It appears from the dearth of medical evidence in the record that plaintiffs may never have been treated for or diagnosed with many of the alleged injuries. This raises the question of what plaintiffs must disclose in order to comply with rule 202.17 (b) (1).

Plaintiffs argue that the rule requires them to turn over only those reports that currently exist from providers who have “previously treated or examined” them. They argue that they are not required to document or create medical evidence of every alleged injury. To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and create a report solely for purposes of the litigations, we agree. Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) could make it prohibitively expensive for some plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits. Some plaintiffs may not be able to afford a medical examination or may not even have access to a doctor. Plaintiffs therefore need only produce reports from medical providers who have “previously treated or examined” them.

To the extent, however, that plaintiffs claim that they need to turn over only those medical reports that currently exist, we disagree. The rule obligates plaintiffs to provide comprehensive reports from their treating and examining medical providers — the reports “shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial” (22 NYCRR 202.17 [b] [1]) [emphasis added]). Plaintiffs therefore cannot avoid disclosure simply because their treating or examining medical providers have not drafted any reports within the meaning of rule 202.17 (b) (1) … . If plaintiffs' medical reports do not contain the information required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical providers draft reports setting forth that information (see id.)… . If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]). Hamilton v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 04230, CtApp 6-12-14

 

,

Tax Assessment Reductions Can Be Sought Solely through a Tax Certiorari Proceeding Under the Real Property Tax Law, Not Through an Article 78 Proceeding

The Second Department determined the procedure under the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) was the only avenue available to petitioner to seek a reduction of tax assessments.  Petitioner had successfully challenged the tax assessments for the 2006/2007 tax year and then sought a reduction for the following year in an Article 78 proceeding.  The Second Department determined petitioner should have sought reductions for all the relevant tax years within the time limits of RPTL 702(2) and could not use an Article 78 proceeding to collaterally attack the assessment:

“Ordinarily, the proper method for challenging excessive or unlawful real property tax assessments is by the commencement of a tax certiorari proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law” … . Such a proceeding is properly commenced after exhaustion of the administrative grievance remedies, and within 30 days after the filing of the final assessment roll (see RPTL 702[2]…). An “excessive assessment” subject to review pursuant to RPTL article 7 includes an assessment of a special assessing unit that fails to comply with the limitations on increases in assessed value set forth in RPTL 1805 (see RPTL 701[4][d]; 706[1]…).

Collateral attacks on assessments are proper where the jurisdiction of the taxing authority is challenged, the tax itself is claimed to be unconstitutional …, or the challenge is to “the method employed in the assessment of several properties rather than the overvaluation or undervaluation of specific properties” … . None of these exceptions to the exclusive applicability of RPTL article 7 are present here, since the petitioner challenged, as excessive, the assessments of specific parcels of property by virtue of the appellants’ failure to comply with RPTL 1805 (see RPTL 701[4][d]).

The petitioner contends that, nonetheless, the commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding within the time provided for by CPLR 217 is the proper vehicle by which to compel the requested transition assessments because recalculation of the 2007/2008 assessments only became necessary after the assessments for the previous tax year were reduced by the Supreme Court and that reduction was affirmed pursuant to our decision and order in Matter of Rainbow Diner v Board of Assessors (71 AD3d 901). We reject this contention, since the petitioner was required to timely exhaust administrative remedies applicable to tax certiorari proceedings, and its challenge was subject to the limitations period of RPTL 702(2). Matter of Jonsher Realty Corp/Melba Inc v Board of Assessors, 2014 NY Slip Op 04195, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

, , ,

Prohibition Proceeding Was the Proper Vehicle to Contest the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor—the District Attorney Had Disqualified Himself from an Election-Related Investigation and Successfully Applied for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor

The Court of Appeals determined an Article 78 proceeding sounding in “prohibition” was the appropriate vehicle to contest the appointment of  a special prosecutor. The district attorney sought to disqualify himself from an election-related investigation and successfully applied to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the NYC Courts for an appointment of a special prosecutor.  The petitioner then brought the prohibition proceeding to contest the appointment.  The appellate division dismissed the petition finding the “prohibition” action inappropriate.   The Court of Appeals determined prohibition was the correct action and the special prosecutor was validly appointed:

The Appellate Division denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. It held that relief by prohibition was unavailable because the conduct that petitioner was seeking to prevent was not “the quasi-judicial act of representing the State in its efforts to bring individuals accused of crimes to justice” but rather a “purely investigative function” that was “executive in nature” (Working Families Party v Fisher, 109 AD3d 478, 480 [2d Dept 2013]). * * *

The Appellate Division erred in holding that an article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is an inappropriate remedy in this case. We recently restated the rule that “prohibition is an appropriate remedy to void the improper appointment of a [special] prosecutor when made by a court” … . While the power to grant prohibition should be exercised sparingly, its availability in cases like this serves an important purpose. When the validity of the appointment of a prosecutor is in question, the question should where possible be given a prompt and definitive answer. It is not in the public interest to allow a prosecutor to carry out a lengthy investigation when there is doubt that his or her appointment is valid, and to run the risk that the process will have to start all over again with a different prosecutor. Matter of Working Families Party v Fisher, 2014 NY Slip Op 04116, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith in Negotiations Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Did Not State a Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the parties failure to come to an agreement did not give rise to a cause of action.  The negotiations, pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, had come to an impasse which, the Court of Appeals concluded, was not actionable:

It is true, as the concurring Justices in the Appellate Division pointed out, that courts normally give a generous reading to pleadings that are attacked as insufficient on their face. But it is not too much to ask that a pleading filed after more than a decade of back and forth between the parties contain some specific facts supporting the claim of bad faith — not just the bald conclusions, contradicted by the only relevant document referred to, that [defendant] insisted “on terms that conflicted with the Settlement Agreement” and “made a definite and final communication” of its intent to violate its obligations. IDT Corp v Tyco Group SARI, 2014 NY Slip Op 04044, CtApp 6-5-14

 

,

Record Did Not Support Striking the Answer for the Spoliation of Evidence

The First Department, over a partial and a full dissent, determined the extreme sanction of striking defendant’s answer and instructing the jury the lost evidence would have supported plaintiff’s position was not appropriate under the facts. Electronically stored information (ESI) had been lost.  The court rejected the argument that the failure to issue a written “litigation hold” to preserve the evidence constituted per se gross negligence.  Instead the court found that the record supported at most simple negligence.  The court explained the operative criteria and its appellate powers in this context:

“A party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must demonstrate: (1) that the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and finally, (3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the [moving]; party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … .

Further, “[w];hile discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … . * * *

Because the record supports, at most, a finding of simple negligence against the MP defendants, plaintiffs must prove that the lost ESI would have supported their claims … . This they have failed to do … . Pegasus Aviation I Inc, v Varig Logistica SA, 2014 NY Slip Op 04047, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

, ,

Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations

The First Department explained that when a notice of termination of an at-will employee is ambiguous with respect to finality, the ambiguity is construed against the employer and the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding is not triggered:

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings … . However, where an administrative agency “create[s]; []; ambiguity and [the]; impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency … .

* * * We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes …, respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely. Matter of Burch v New York City Health & Hosp Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04060, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained

In finding the moving party, Schwartz, had not complied with the relevant statutes conceerning a discretionary venue change, the Second Department explained some of the mechanics of a motion to change venue:

That branch of Schwartz’s motion which was to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Richmond County. A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county (see CPLR 2212[a]…). Schwartz was therefore required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) in Nassau County, where the action was pending, in another county in the 10th Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Nassau County … . Since Nassau County and Richmond County are not contiguous, and Richmond County is not in the 10th Judicial District, the Supreme Court, Richmond County, erred in granting that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(3)

Furthermore, that branch of Schwartz’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue based on an allegedly improper county was untimely made, as it was not served within 15 days after service of his demand for a change of venue (see CPLR 511[b]…). In addition, in response to Schwartz’s demand for a change of venue, the appellant served a timely affirmation with supporting proof that was, prima facie, sufficient to support its choice of venue as of right in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (see CPLR 503[c]; 511[b]; 2103[b];[2]; 2106…). Accordingly, that branch of Schwartz’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510(1) also should have been made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, where the action was pending, and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, erred in granting that branch of the motion as well… . Schwartz v Yellowbook Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04000, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply

The Second Department explained when the court may consider evidence submitted for the first time in a surreply:

While it is true that unauthorized surreplies containing new arguments generally should not be considered by the court … , the procedural history in this case is analogous to circumstances in which arguments are raised for the first time in reply. Arguments raised for the first time in reply may be considered if the original movant is given the opportunity to respond and submits papers in surreply… . Here, while the motion was fully briefed by its return date, the court granted the defendants’ application for an adjournment to February 8, 2013, in order to respond to the plaintiff’s reply. The defendants submitted the surreply containing the Nolie affidavit dated January 28, 2013, and the plaintiff responded to it on February 7, 2013. In addition, oral argument was held on February 8, 2013. Consequently, the plaintiff had adequate opportunity to address the new arguments raised in the defendants’ surreply, and the Supreme Court properly considered it. Gluck v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 03977, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Courts Will Not Intercede to Resolve a Dispute Between Two Wrongdoers—“In Pari Delicto”

The Second Department explained the doctrine of in pari delicto, where a court will not resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers:

“The doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers. The doctrine survives because it serves important public policy purposes. First, denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer deters illegality. Second, in pari delicto avoids entangling courts in disputes between wrongdoers” … . The evidence established that the plaintiff knew that the defendants were offering to sell what amounted to a franchise as defined by General Business Law § 681(3), to multiple persons at the same time that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into their agreement, and that the plaintiff was both aware of and complicit in the defendants’ violation of the Franchise Sales Act. Under the circumstances, the court properly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, “not to favor [the]; defendant, but as a matter of public policy” … . Burgers Bar Five Towns LLC v Burger Holdings Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 03870, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

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