You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that immediate release of an involuntaty patient from a mental health hospital pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus because of the facility’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law provisions for continued detention was reversible error.  Supreme Court should have conducted an examination into the patient’s alleged disability and detention.  The court discussed the nature and origin of the habeas corpus petition and the relationship between a habeas corpus petition brought under the Mental Hygiene Law and under Article 70 of the CPLR (finding them to be in essence the same). In addition, the Second Department discussed the mootness doctrine which, under certain circumtances, allows an appellate court to hear  a moot case.  The habeas corpus petition here had been rendered moot by the patient’s release:

Generally, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” …. . Typically, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits a court to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question … .Here, the release of the patient renders this appeal academic. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on this appeal pursuant to the exception to the mootness doctrine because the primary issue raised is an important one which implicates both the patient’s fundamental liberty interest and the State’s interest in protecting the mentally ill, and is one which is likely to recur. Further, the primary issue involved here may typically evade review because “[t]he Mental Hygiene Law contemplates that involuntary hospitalization in a mental health facility is often brief and temporary . . . [and the law] require[s] frequent periodic review of a patient’s status, and the release of the patient unless OMH is granted successive court orders authorizing retention” … . * * *

Here, the patient was initially involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 due to his alleged mental illness and, thereafter, the petition for a writ was filed on the patient’s behalf. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to determine whether the patient was being unlawfully detained (see CPLR 7002[a]… ). Therefore, in order to determine the cause and legality of the patient’s detention, the Supreme Court was required to examine the facts of the patient’s alleged mental disability and detention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15[a], [b]; CPLR 7002). The Supreme Court’s failure to conduct the required examination constitutes reversible error. We note that the Hospital supported its untimely retention application with, inter alia, two certificates from the patient’s treating physicians. In those certificates, the physicians asserted that the patient was paranoid, unable to care for himself, and psychotic. Our determination should not be construed as an approval of the Hospital’s dilatory conduct in filing the retention application. There is no dispute that the Hospital failed to comply with Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Under the circumstances presented, however, the remedy for such noncompliance is not the immediate release of a patient. We also caution that our reasoning should not be construed to authorize an unlimited violation of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law so as to allow a patient to be involuntarily retained, without a hearing, indefinitely. People v Munsey, 2014 NY Slip Op 01782, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, , ,

Taxi Owners Not Entitled to Damages After Ruling by NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (Which Was Alleged to Have Damaged the Taxi Owners in the Amount of Over $15 Million) Was Found Arbitrary and Capricious

The First Department determined a ruling by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), which was found to be arbitrary and capricious by the Court of Appeals, did not entitle the petitioners (taxi owners who lease their taxis to drivers) to damages. The court determined the damages were not “incidental” within the meaning of Article 78 and were not available in an Article 78 proceeding (under the facts). The court futher determined the TLC was immune from suit because the ruling at issue was an exercise of discretion . The ruling by the TLC had effectively reduced the amount a taxi owner could charge a driver by requiring that tax payments for which the owner is responsible be included in the amount charged for the lease (called a “lease cap”). After that ruling was found arbitrary by the Court of Appeals, the taxi owners sought “incidental damages” of over $15 million:

Petitioners seek damages based on the Court of Appeals’ determination that the TLC’s effective reduction of the taxi “lease cap” had no rational basis. The Court of Appeals’ determination, however, does not lead to a conclusion that the damages are “incidental to the primary relief sought” (CPLR 7806). Contrary to petitioners’ argument, monetary injury incurred as a result of agency action does not necessarily constitute incidental damages simply because a court later finds the action to have been arbitrary and capricious. Certainly, whether damages are characterized as incidental “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Even so, incidental damages are generally confined to monies that an agency either collected from or withheld from a petitioner and then was obligated to reimburse after a court annulled a particular agency determination. * * *

CPLR 7806 explicitly limits the availability of damages in an article 78 proceeding … . That article 78 permits the court, in certain circumstances, to award damages in an action that also reviews the validity of a government determination does not create a right to damages that does not otherwise exist. * * *…

[T]he TLC’s determination in this case, however unjustified it may have been, was an exercise of discretion; the TLC did consider the issue of imposing the tax rule and decided to impose it. Putting aside the merits of its decision, there is no escaping that the TLC exercised its discretion. Indeed, a governmental function such as rulemaking is necessarily an “exercise of judgment and discretion performed in the public interest,” and is protected as a discretionary act … . Accordingly, in a plenary action, governmental immunity would preclude petitioners from recovering incidental damages. Metropolitan Taxicab Bd of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 01683, 1st Dept 3-18-14

 

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing On His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Newly Discovered Evidence Someone Else Confessed to the Crime

The Third Department determined defendant had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction.  The court found no indication the new evidence could have been discovered with due diligence at the time of trial and the new evidence (the confession of another to the crime) was not merely impeachment evidence:

…[W]e find that the affidavit of Maurice Miller proffered by defendant was sufficient to warrant a hearing.Miller’s affidavit was subscribed to in January 2012 and alleged, among other things, that he had witnessed another drug dealer,Alexander Llanos, sell crack to Grimsley on the day of the shooting, that defendant was not present in the area, and thatLlanos later confessed to the shooting. First addressing whether the evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to trial, a court must keep in mind “the practicalities of the situation” and weigh the “limited resources generally available” to a defendant … . Miller averred that he had not contacted police at the time of the crime because he feared retaliation. Defendant was 16 years old, incarcerated and had assigned counsel. Under these circumstances, there is no indication that defendant’s failure to discover this witness was the result of a lack of due diligence … .

Turning to the question of whether the evidence proffered was merely impeachment evidence, the confession of Llanos to the crime was material to the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence … . Furthermore, a defendant has a fundamental right to offer into evidence the admission of another to the crime with which he or she is charged and, therefore, a hearing should have been held to determine the probative value of Miller’s testimony and its probable effect on the verdict … . Accordingly, we find a hearing necessary to promote justice inasmuch as the issues raised are “‘sufficiently unusual and suggest searching investigation'” … . People v Page, 2014 NY Slip Op 105312, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

Motion to Renew Granted in Interest of Justice Despite Knowledge of Facts at Time of Original Motion/Motion to Vacate Default Granted Based On Law Office Failure

The Second Department determined a motion to renew was properly granted, in the interest of justice, even though the facts were known at the time of the original motion.  The court also determined, under the facts, the motion to vacate a default judgment was properly granted on the ground of law office failure:

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion which would change the prior determination, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e][2]…). However, “[t]he rule is not inflexible, and renewal may be granted in the court’s discretion, in the interest of justice, even on facts that were known to the movant at the time of the original motion” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the defendants …  which was for leave to renew that branch of their prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court as granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment … .

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court also properly permitted the Lee defendants to interpose an answer to the complaint and precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the default judgment … . In moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default, the movant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005). Here, the … defendants’ principal affirmed that he retained prior counsel to oppose the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment, but that prior counsel nevertheless failed to oppose the motion, which was granted without opposition. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting this explanation as an excusable default … . The …defendants also demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . In addition, there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff from the delay in answering, and no evidence of an intent by the Lee defendants to abandon any defenses to the action.  Shin v ITCI Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01600, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the offered “law office failure” excuse for failing to enter a default judgment within the one-year time limit was not sufficient:

CPLR 3215(c), entitled “Default not entered within one year,” provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” (emphasis added). “To avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for his or her delay and must demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why it did not seek to enter a judgment against the defendant until nearly three years after his failure to answer or appear (see CPLR 3215[c]…). The excuse of law office failure proffered by the plaintiff in its moving papers was “vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated” and, thus, did not constitute a sufficient excuse for the plaintiff’s extended delay in moving to enter a default judgment after the defendant’s default… . GMAC v Minewiser, 2014 NY Slip Op 01581, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

Defendant Company’s Failure to Keep Current Address On File With Secretary of State Was Not an Adequate Excuse for Default

The Second Department determined that the failure of defendant limited liability company to maintain its current address with the Secretary of State precluded defendant from successfully opposing the motion to enter a default judgment (based upon defendant’s failure to answer:)

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). The defendant contended that it maintained an old address on file with the Secretary of State, and denied receipt of copies of the summons and complaint. However, the defendant’s unexplained failure to keep the Secretary of State apprised of its current address over a significant period of time did not constitute a reasonable excuse … .

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur of its default pursuant to CPLR 317. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence that, for a period of more than five years, the defendant failed to file, with the Secretary of State, the required biennial form that would have apprised the Secretary of State of its current address (see Limited Liability Company Law § 301[e]). Under these circumstances, the defendants’ failure to personally receive copies of the summons and complaint was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid notice of actions commenced against it… . Cruz v Keter Residence LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege associated with his youthful offender status. Although defendant’s son had pled guilty to an assault based upon his throwing an egg, he denied throwing the egg in his deposition during the related civil proceedings.  That denial did not waive the privilege and the plaintiff could not gain access to the records of the criminal proceedings:

The youthful offender statute (CPL article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which ” emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals'” … . Thus, “[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense” (CPL 720.35[1]). Further, pursuant to CPL 720.35(2), all official records and papers concerning the adjudication are sealed. * * *

The privilege created by this statute attaches not only to the physical documents constituting the official record, but also to the information contained within those documents … . Thus, a person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made. However, the person must still answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication … . * * *

Here, the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege afforded by the statute since he did not commence an action which places the conduct at issue … . The defendant did not assert counterclaims or cross claims in this action placing the conduct at issue …, and the defendant’s son did not testify as to the confidential contents of the records … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendant’s son at his deposition denying that he threw the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter did not waive the protections of the statute … . Castiglione v James FQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 01571, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

,

Inexperience or Lack of Sophistication Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations Re: the Discovery of Fraud/The Test for When the Fraud Should Have Been Discovered in an Objective One

The First Department determined the action alleging the fraudulent churning of trades by an employee of Morgan Stanley was untimely.  The plaintiff argued that plaintiff’s inexperience and lack of sophistication should toll the statute of limitations re: the discovery of the fraud.  The court explained that when the fraud should have been noticed is determined by an objective test:

“The test as to when fraud should with reasonable diligence have been discovered is an objective one,” and the duty of inquiry arises “where the circumstances are such as to suggest to a person of ordinary intelligence the probability that he [or she] has been defrauded” … . Apt v Morgan Stanley DW Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01541, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

,

Language in the Arbitration Agreement Supported the Applicability of the New York Law Reserving the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Court, Even Though the Controlling Federal Arbitration Act Presumptively Reserves the Determination of a Statute of Limitations Defense to the Arbitrator

The First Department determined that an arbitration agreement which specifically incorporates “the arbitration laws of New York State” incorporates the New York rule that the resolution of a statute of limitations defense is for the court, not the arbitrator, even where the matter is controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA] (which presumptively reserves resolution of a statute of limitations defense to the arbitrator):

Under the FAA, the “resolution of a statute of limitations defense is presumptively reserved to the arbitrator, not a court” … . “[A]n exception to this rule exists where parties explicitly agree to leave timeliness issues to the court” (Matter of Diamond Waterproofing Sys., Inc. v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 4 NY3d 247, 253 [2005]). This is in keeping with the FAA policy by which private arbitration agreements are to be enforced according to their terms (id. at 252). Unlike the FAA, New York law “allows a threshold issue of timeliness to be asserted in court” even absent an agreement to do so (…CPLR 7502 [b]; 7503 [a]).

The arbitration clause of the agreement before us provides that “the arbitration laws of New York State” shall govern the parties’ arbitration. In Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie (85 NY2d 193 [1995]…), the Court held that a choice of law provision which states that New York law shall govern both “the agreement and its enforcement” incorporated New York’s rule that threshold statute of limitations questions are for the courts (id. at 202). In Diamond Waterproofing, the Court held that an agreement that merely provided that it “shall be governed by the law of [New York]” did not express an intent to have New York law govern enforcement (4 NY3d at 253). The Court reasoned that “[i]n the absence of more critical Language concerning enforcement . . . all controversies, including issues of timeliness, are subjects for arbitration” (id.).

The question arises as to whether the specific incorporation of “the arbitration laws of New York State” in the instant arbitration clause itself constitutes the needed “more critical language concerning enforcement” within the contemplation of Diamond Waterproofing. We hold that it does and, under the agreement, the arbitration laws of New York State include article 75 of the CPLR.  Matter of ROM Reins Mgt Co Inc v Continental Ins Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01546, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

Failure to Make Timely Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Improper Service Constituted a Waiver of the Jurisdictional Defense

The Third Department determined defendant’s (O’Neill’s) jurisdictional defense based on improper service was waived by the failure to move for judgment on that ground within 60 days:

Plaintiff did not effectuate proper substituted service on O’Neill because she failed to mail a copy of the pleadings to O’Neill after the process server left a copy with the president of Hafner Valuation at O’Neill’s place of business (see CPLR 308 [2]). Despite the error in service and defendants having raised it in their answer,O’Neill waived his objection on this ground by failing to move for judgment on that basis within 60 days of serving the answer (see CPLR 3211 [e]…).  Sutton v Hafner Valuation Group Inc, 516779, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

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