You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

Erasure of Audio Recording Constituted Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Under New York Common Law—No Need to Turn to Federal Law Re: Preservation of Electronically Stored Information

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined the City’s erasure of an audio recording related to a police chase that resulted in injuries to plaintiffs constituted negligent spoliation under New York common law and there was no need to rely on federal authority re: the spoliation of electronically stored information [ESI]:

…[P]laintiffs’ spoliation claim can be fully addressed under New York’s common-law spoliation doctrine. However, because plaintiffs rely exclusively on the [federal] Zubulake IV rule that “[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold'” to preserve evidence (220 FRD at 218), we briefly address the question of whether we need to import Zubulake’s rules into the established New York common-law rules as to spoliation of non-ESI evidence.

The cases in which this Court has explicitly adopted the Zubulake rulings have involved ESI discovery … . The usefulness of the Zubulake standard in the e-discovery arena, is … that it “provides litigants with sufficient certainty as to the nature of their obligations in the electronic discovery context and when those obligations are triggered” (93 AD3d at 36). At the same time, … Zubulake “is harmonious with New York precedent in the traditional discovery context” … . This is an area that did not need greater certainty or clarification. * * *

We … conclude that reliance on the federal standard is unnecessary in this context. Zubulake interpreted federal rules and earlier federal case law to adapt those rules to the context of ESI discovery. However, the erasure of, and the obligation to preserve, relevant audiotapes and videotapes, can be, and has been, fully addressed without reference to the federal rules and standards. Strong v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06655, 1st Dept 10-15-13

 

, ,

Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a “registered voter’s” [Nichol’s] motion to intervene in an action to determine the constitutionality of a local law concerning term limits for public offices.  The court explained:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). Additionally, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … .

Here, contrary to Nichols’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to intervene in the action as a defendant. Although Nichols, who describes himself as a “registered voter in the County of Suffolk and an active supporter of [his] constitutional right to pass and enforce term limit legislation,” may indeed be interested in defending the local law in question, he failed to demonstrate that he has a “real and substantial interest” in the action … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court appropriately noted, he failed to show that any interest he did have would not be adequately represented by the defendant … . Accordingly, the court properly denied Nichols’s motion for leave to intervene. Spota v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 06558, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Similar Pending Lawsuit Properly Dismissed—Two Lawsuits Sought Declaratory Judgment Re: Duty to Defend and Indemnify

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action for a declaratory judgment re: an insurance company’s duty to defend and indemnify because of its similarity to another pending action:

Where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same, a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) on the ground that there is another action pending … . “The critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs” … . Under the circumstances of this case, upon the record that existed at the time the Supreme Court issued the order appealed from, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) … . Scottsdale Ins Co v Indemnity Ins Corp RRG, 2013 NY Slip Op 06557, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

, ,

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff did not allege the city had notice of the defect and sought to amend the complaint to add the allegation.  The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend:

… [T]he Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the City’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. Instead, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion and permitted him to amend the pleadings and the notice of claim to add an allegation that the City received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect where, as here, the amendment would not prejudice or surprise the City (see CPLR 3025; General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]…).  Perez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06553, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 2001, to allow the filing and serving of a summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff had timely attempted to file the summons and complaint using a new electronic filing system in Westchester County. It turned out that plaintiff’s counsel had mistakenly used a “practice” filing system designed to familiarize users with electronic filing and the summons and complaint was never actually filed in time.  The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to be allowed to cure the mistake under CPLR 2001 should have been granted after explaining that, in this case, CPLR 2001 should be to correct an error without concern for whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the correction:

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s e-filing error cannot be corrected, as doing so would prejudice the defendant by depriving her of a viable statute of limitations defense. However, we conclude that under a proper reading of CPLR 2001, the issue of prejudice to the defendant need not be reached.

More specifically, we believe that many reported cases in New York reflect a misreading of the language of CPLR 2001. Judicial discretion and the absence of prejudice are not requirements that must be applied in a combined fashion. Rather, a close reading of the statute reveals that CPLR 2001 recognizes two separate forms of potential relief to address mistakes, omissions, defects, or irregularities in the filing of papers. The statute distinguishes between the “correction” of mistakes and the “disregarding” of mistakes, and each invokes a different test. Courts may “correct[ ]” mistakes “upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 2001). The statute then says, set off by an “or,” that mistakes may be “disregarded” if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . Thus, a “correction” of a mistake appears to be subject to a broader degree of judicial discretion without necessary regard to prejudice, whereas a complete “disregarding” of a mistake must not prejudice an opposing party. … The distinction between simply correcting a mistake and overlooking a mistake makes sense, as a party seeking to wholly disregard a filing mistake may understandably be expected to bear a higher burden than a party seeking a mere correction.

A secondary inquiry, therefore, is whether the plaintiff’s request for a nunc pro tunc recognition of his filing in the NYSCEF “practice” system amounts to a mere correction that may be permitted upon terms that may be just, or whether it constitutes a full-scale disregard of the filing error that, in order to be permitted, requires a showing that the defendant will not be prejudiced by the disregard.

… [Here] [t]he “filing” was performed in a mistaken manner and method, which courts are permitted to correct on terms that may be just … . Therefore, the plaintiff was under no burden to demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the defendant. In contrast, excusing a clearly untimely filing would constitute the disregarding of an error, which could not be permitted because it would be prejudicial to a defendant to deprive it of a legitimate statute of limitations defense. Grskovic v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 06545, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

, ,

Concept of an Equitable Mortgage Explained, Affirmative Defenses Left Out of Original Answer (Waived) Can Be Included in Amended Answer

The Second Department explained the concept of an “equitable mortgage” and noted that affirmative defenses waived pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) can be included in an answer amended by leave of court:

New York law allows the imposition of an equitable lien if there is an express or implied agreement that there shall be a lien on specific property … . “While [a] court will impose an equitable mortgage where the facts surrounding a transaction evidence that the parties intended that a specific piece of property is to be held or transferred to secure an obligation, it is necessary that an intention to create such a charge clearly appear from the language and the attendant circumstances” … .
Here, the defendant initially did not raise in his answer a defense based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of standing or a capacity to sue, or the statute of limitations. Hence, those affirmative defenses were waived at that point (see CPLR 3211[e]). However, defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay and is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). ” Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… .  Deutsche Bank Trust Co Ams v Cox, 2013 NY slip Op 06543, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike Did Not Demonstrate Good Faith Effort to Resolve Issue with Opposing Counsel

In finding the defendant’s cross-claim should not have been struck as a sanction for failure to appear for depositions, the First Department noted that the affidavit in support of the motion to strike did not demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve the matter with opposing counsel:

A party moving to strike a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 is required to submit an affirmation that counsel for the moving party has made “a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion” with opposing party’s counsel (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] 202.7). To be deemed sufficient, the affirmation must state the nature of the efforts made by the moving party to reconcile with opposing counsel (22 NYCRR 202.7[c]…).

Here, [defendant] GSY’s affirmation of its good faith effort to resolve the dispute with [cross-claim defendant] Shavolian did not substantively comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.7 … . In its affirmation in support of the motion to strike, GSY stated that it made “good faith efforts to proceed with disclosure,” pointing to a letter it faxed to Shavolian’s counsel. There is nothing in the letter, which was written before the continued deposition date, indicating that GSY’s counsel actually conferred with Shavolian’s lawyer in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute… .  241 Fifth Ave Hotel LLC v GSY Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 06514, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

, , ,

Disclosure Appropriate in Lead Paint Case, Physician-Patient Privilege Waived

In a lead-paint-exposure case the Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants were not entitled to full disclosure of records based on the physician-patient privilege.  The Fourth Department determined the privilege had been waived:

In view of the injuries alleged by plaintiff, we conclude that she waived her physician-patient privilege and any related privileges with respect to the records sought, and that those records may be material and necessary to the defense of the action … . There may be information in plaintiff’s records, however, that is irrelevant to this action, and there are legitimate concerns with respect to “the unfettered disclosure of sensitive and confidential information” contained in those records … . Thus, here, as in Dominique D. v Koerntgen (107 AD3d 1433, 1434), we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion and cross motion to the extent that they seek authorizations for the full disclosure of the records sought and by granting plaintiff’s cross motion to the extent that it seeks an in camera review of the records, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for such in camera review and the redaction of any irrelevant information… . Adams v Daughtery…, 907, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Voluntarily Discontinue Lawsuit

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have permitted plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the lawsuit:

The court erred in declining to permit plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the action. CPLR 3217(b) authorizes a court to grant a motion for voluntary discontinuance “upon terms and conditions, as the court deems proper.” While the determination upon such an application is generally within the sound discretion of the court …, a party ordinarily cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special circumstances, such as prejudice to adverse parties, a discontinuance should be granted … . No special circumstances have been shown here, especially since the action is still in the early stages of litigation. Nor was there any showing that plaintiff sought the discontinuance only to avoid an adverse determination in this action ,,, . Since we are granting plaintiff’s motion, the cross motion to compel discovery must be denied.  Bank of Am NA v Douglas, 2013 NY Slip 06440, 1st Dept 10-3-13

 

, ,

Hospital Not Necessary Party in Malpractice Action Where Liability Vicarious

The Second Department determined a hospital which may be vicariously liable in a medical malpractice action was not a necessary party to the action:

The Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the nonparty Victory Memorial Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) was not a necessary party to this action. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, even if it were shown that the hospital would be vicariously liable for any negligence of the individual defendants, or that it had a contractual obligation to indemnify those individual defendants for damages recovered from them in this action, those factors would not render the hospital a necessary party to this action (see CPLR 1001[a]…). Complete relief may be accorded to the parties in this action without the presence of the hospital, as a plaintiff may proceed against any or all joint-tortfeasors, and a judgment for or against one tortfeasor does not operate as a merger or bar of a claim against other tortfeasors … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the motion and cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10) to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a necessary party.  Smith v Pasqua, 2013 NY slip Op 06356, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

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