You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Appellate Court Can Exercise Its Own Discretion Re: Scope of Discovery, Even in the Absence of Abuse

The First Department determined, over a dissent, that Supreme Court had improperly restricted the discovery of software code.  The court explained its power to overrule the trial court in this regard and the underlying principle allowing broad discovery:

New York strongly encourages open and full disclosure as a matter of policy … . To that end, CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.”

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in its supervision of disclosure … . Indeed, “deference is afforded to the trial court’s discretionary determinations regarding disclosure” … . However, “[t]his Court is vested with the power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court, even in the absence of abuse” … . We have observed that we “rarely and reluctantly invoke” our power to substitute our own discretion for that of the motion court … . We find that this case presents one of those rare instances in which we are compelled to substitute our discretion for that of the motion court. MSCI Inc v Jacob, 2014 NY Slip Op 06239, 1st Dept 8-18-14

 

Wrong Party Name Could Not Be Remedied by Service of an Amended Summons and Complaint—Supreme Court Could Not Grant Motion to Serve Amended Pleadings Because the Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over the Misnamed Party (Misnamed Party Never Served)—Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The pleadings named a trade name, not the correct name of the business. Supreme Court had allowed plaintiffs to serve an amended summons and complaint.  The Second Department determined Supreme Court never had jurisdiction over the defendant (because the defendant was never served) and the relation back doctrine did not apply:

The Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against “Summit Business Media,” as a trade name is not a jural entity amenable to suit … . In addition, under CPLR 305(c), “an amendment to correct a misnomer will be permitted if the court has acquired jurisdiction over the intended but misnamed defendant provided that . . . the intended but misnamed defendant was fairly apprised that [it] was the party the action was intended to affect . . . [and] would not be prejudiced’ by allowing the amendment” … . Here, because neither the appellant nor its predecessor-in-interest, Summit Business Media, LLC, were served with process, the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, and lacked the authority to grant leave to amend the summons and complaint … . Further, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the relation-back doctrine applied (see CPLR 203[b]…). Honeyman v Curiosity Works Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06176, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Petition to Commence Action Against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Should Not Have Been Denied In the Absence of a Hearing

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have summarily determined a petition to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Insurance Corporation (MVAIC) and ordered a hearing.  Plaintiff alleged he was injured (while riding a scooter) by a driver who left the scene:

Here, while the petitioner sufficiently pleaded the prima facie elements necessary to commence an action against the MVAIC (see Insurance Law §§ 5217, 5218), the MVAIC raised questions of fact precluding summary determination of the petition. Based on the record before us, the issues of (1) whether the petitioner is an uninsured resident of New York, and, therefore, a “qualified person” pursuant to article 52 of the Insurance Law (see Insurance Law § 5202[b]), (2) whether the accident was reported to the police within 24 hours (see Insurance Law § 5218[b]; 5208[a][2][A]), and (3) whether the petitioner served a notice of claim upon the MVAIC within 90 days of the accident (see Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]), could not have been resolved without an evidentiary hearing … . Thus, the Supreme Court should not have summarily determined the petition (see CPLR 409, 410).  Matter of Hernandez v Motor Veh Acc Indem Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06203, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a default judgment in a foreclosure action:

” A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … . “Under CPLR 5015(a), a court is empowered to vacate a default judgment for several reasons, including excusable neglect; newly-discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction; or upon the reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior order” … .

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Indeed, the drafters of CPLR 5015(a) “intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but [*2]which the drafters could not easily foresee” … .

“The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” … .

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered on the default of the Cohen defendants “in the interests of substantial justice” … . The documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion raises issues including, among others, whether the plaintiff had “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue” … . Hudson City Sav Bank v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06177, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements Required Dismissal of Action Seeking Review of Real Property Tax Assessments—Such a Dismissal is On the Merits

The Second Department determined dismissal of the proceeding questioning the assessment of a parcel of land was properly dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 708(3).  The court noted that such a dismissal is on the merits:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City had standing to seek dismissal of the proceedings based on the petitioner’s failure to give notice of the proceedings to the Superintendent of the District pursuant to RPTL 708(3) … .

As the petitioner correctly concedes on appeal, it failed to give notice of the proceedings to the Superintendent of the District pursuant to RPTL 708(3), and lacked good cause for its failure. * * *

Since a dismissal pursuant to RPTL 708(3) operates as a dismissal upon the merits, the relief afforded by CPLR 205(a) is unavailable … . Matter of Westchester Joint Water Works v Assessor of City of Rye, 2014 NY Slip Op 06208, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a medical malpractice action, finding that the conditional granting of defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from submitting evidence of neurological injuries and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars constituted abuse of discretion.  The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not “willfully and contumaciously fail to appear for a neuropsychological examination” by the defendants’ doctor and the amendment of the bill of particulars would not prejudice the defendants.  The court noted that the plaintiffs’ request to audiotape the neurophsychological examination was not supported by “special and unusual circumstances” warranting it:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure, including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . However, “before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the hospital defendants’ motion which was to conditionally preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of the injured plaintiff’s neurological injuries, since there was no clear showing that the injured plaintiff had willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for a neuropsychological examination. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the conduct of the plaintiffs or their attorney warranted the imposition of sanctions. * * *

“Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . Where there is an unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend, without excuse, and the motion for leave to amend is made close to or on the eve of trial, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the relief … . However, lateness alone is “not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … . In this case, the proposed amendment was first sought in September 2011. Since the hospital defendants and Roca were aware of the plaintiffs’ allegations well before the eve of trial, they were not prejudiced by the amendment. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars … . Dimouslas v Roca, 2014 NY Slip Op 06170, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

The First Department explained that, while hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, it can not be the sole basis for denying the motion:

“A party opposing summary judgment may proffer hearsay evidence, but such proof may not be the sole factual basis for denying summary judgment” … . * * * …[D]efendant’s affidavit relies only on hearsay evidence … . The documentary evidence is to the contrary. Andron v Libby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06155, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

,

Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity

The Second Department determined the allegations of mutual mistake were not made with the requisite particularity and the related counter claim and affirmative defense were properly granted:

“A claim of mutual mistake is stated where the allegations indicate that the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Absent fraud, “the mistake shown must be one made by both parties to the agreement, so that the intentions of neither are expressed in it” … . “A claim predicated on mutual mistake must be pleaded with the requisite particularity necessitated under CPLR 3016(b)” …, which provides that “where a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, wilful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” Ultimately, the proponent of reformation based on mutual mistake must demonstrate the particulars of the actual agreement intended by the parties, based on the particularized allegations in the complaint… . Friedland Realty Inc v 416 W LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06052, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , ,

Elements of Fraud, Money Had and Received, and Unjust Enrichment Explained

In finding the allegations in the complaint insufficient, the Second Department explained the elements of causes of action for fraud, money had and received, and unjust enrichment:

The elements of a cause of action based on fraud are “a representation of material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation that it was false when made, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury” … . The misrepresentation may be in the form of an omission of a material fact … . Although the question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is usually fact-intensive …, where the plaintiff alleges only that the defendant omitted a material fact when making a representation to another party, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against either the representor or the representee … . * * *

“The essential elements of a cause of action for money had and received are (1) the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant benefitted from receipt of the money, and (3) under principles of equity and good conscience, the defendant should not be permitted to keep the money”… . * * *

In a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, “[a] plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . The plaintiff, in his complaint, did not identify any money that was retained … at his expense and, in any event, “[a]lthough privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated” … . Lebovits v Bassman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06061, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , , , , ,

Law Explained Re: Suit Against Municipality and Police Officers Alleging Excessive Force

The Second Department explained the law relevant to a suit against police officers, including “John Does,” and a municipality alleging the excessive use of force.  A “1983” action against a municipality cannot be based solely on the actions of an employee or on the basis of respondeat superior, but an intentional tort action can.  “John Does” must be identified and served within the applicable statute of limitations:

“Claims that law enforcement personnel used excessive force in the course of an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its standard of objective reasonableness” … . “The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight'” … . Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide … . If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, that the contact was offensive, i.e., wrongful under all of the circumstances, and intent to make the contact without the plaintiff’s consent” … . * * *

“A municipality is not liable under 42 USC § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents” …, or “solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability” … . * * *

Unlike cases commenced under 42 USC § 1983, municipalities may be liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the common law torts, such as false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery, committed by their employees … . * * *

The Town defendants demonstrated that the complaint should be dismissed insofar as asserted against the John Does by showing that the plaintiffs failed to identify the John Does and serve them with process prior to the expiration of the statutes of limitations applicable to this case. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they exercised due diligence in attempting to identify and serve the John Does such that the applicable limitations periods had tolled or were otherwise inapplicable … . Lepore v Town of Greenburgh, 2014 NY Slip Op 06063, 2nd Dept 9-10-14