You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records

In finding DNA-profile reports generated by the City of New York’s Medical Examiner did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation, the Second Department wrote:

The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, or subjective analyses, and “consisted of merely machine-generated graphs” and raw data … . Accordingly, the reports were not “testimonial” in nature … .

Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records was established through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518[a]…), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of the data contained in the reports at issue.  People v Fucito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05538, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

Absence of Adequate Reason for Errata Sheet (CPLR 3116(a)) Altering Deposition Testimony Precluded Its Acceptance

Plaintiff was injured when he fell while using a ladder at the plumbing business where he worked. The ladder was owned by plaintiff’s employer and the property was owned by an out-of-possession landlord.  During his deposition, plaintiff said he had no idea why the ladder slid out from under him when he attempted to step on a shelf.  In reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s post-deposition errata sheet could not be considered in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not provide an adequate reason for the alteration of his deposition testimony:

In his post-deposition errata sheet, the injured plaintiff radically changed much of his earlier testimony, with the vague explanation that he had been “nervous” during his deposition. CPLR 3116(a) provides that a “deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him or her, and any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered at the end of the deposition with a statement of reasons given by the witness for making them.” Since the injured plaintiff failed to offer an adequate reason for materially altering the substance of his deposition testimony, the altered testimony could not properly be considered in determining the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether a defect in, or the inadequacy of, the ladder caused his fall… . In the absence of the proposed alterations, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the defectiveness or inadequacy of the ladder so as to warrant the denial of summary judgment. Likewise, in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the trust was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair or maintain the ladder or the floor, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ashford v Tannenhauser, 2013 NY Slip Op 05508, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

Absence of 90-Day Demand to Serve a Note of Issue Precluded Dismissal of Lawsuit Based on Gross Laches (12-Year Delay)

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, the Second Department determined that the doctrine of laches was not available to dismiss a pre-note-of-issue case which had been dormant for 12 years.  In this slip and fall case, the incident occurred in 1992, issue was joined, plaintiffs served a bill of particulars, but plaintiffs failed to appear at a June 1996 status conference. The action was “marked off” the calendar and later marked “disposed.”  In October, 2008, the plaintiffs moved restore the action to the active pre-note-of-issue calendar. Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss based on laches “concluding that it lacked the power to dismiss the … complaint.”  The Second Department affirmed, explaining:

At the outset, we note that we summarized the law applicable to the issue in this case in Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv. (282 AD2d 190), where we explained the interplay among three case management devices: CPLR 3404, 22 NYCRR 202.27, and CPLR 3216. In Lopez, we made clear that none of these devices applies to a pre-note-of-issue case where, as here, there has been no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and the defendant has never made a 90-day written demand on the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216… . In this case, the [defendant] attempts to avoid the holding in Lopez by relying on the doctrine of laches as the basis for dismissing the complaint. * * *

…[T]he Court of Appeals concluded in Airmont Homes that dismissal for either gross laches or failure to prosecute was not available in the absence of compliance with CPLR 3216 (see Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 NY2d at 902). To allow dismissal under the circumstances of this case based on the doctrine of laches would be tantamount to permitting dismissal for general delay, which the courts lack inherent authority to do, and which is inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying CPLR 3216 [which requires a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue]. …

Although an extensive delay in prosecuting an action may, at times, prejudice a defendant’s ability to defend against a suit, a defendant has the statutory means of avoiding such prejudicial delay by serving a 90-day demand … . Laches, which is an equitable doctrine, does not provide an alternate route to dismissal where a defendant has not served the 90-day demand statutorily required to prompt resumption of the litigation … .  Arroyo v Board of Educ of City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 05507, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

,

Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall)

The Second Department, over a dissent, set aside a verdict in a slip and fall case which found that the defendant’s (City of New York’s) negligence was not the proximate cause of the fall.  Plaintiff fell on a portion of sidewalk which “was all patched” and which had “a hole in it.”  The court explained:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors … . Where a jury verdict with respect to negligence and proximate causation is irreconcilably inconsistent, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence … .

Contrary to the contention of the defendant City of New York, the plaintiff sufficiently identified the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused her fall … . Under the circumstances of this case, for the jury to find the City negligent for failing to repair a sidewalk defect while on notice of its existence, yet to find that this negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, was contrary to the weight of the evidence and irreconcilably inconsistent… .  Wallace v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05523, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

,

Method of Service of Citation Should Be Calculated to Provide Notice Based Upon Facts Known To Court

The Second Department determined a decree (admitting decedent’s will to probate) issued by Surrogate’s Court should have been vacated on the ground that decedent’s daughter (Ross) was never properly served with the citation and, therefore, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction over her.  The Second Department explained that Surrogate Court should have fashioned a method of service, based upon the unique facts of the case known to the court, that was best calculated to notify Ross:

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections”… . In making a determination as to whether notice is “reasonably calculated,” the unique information about an intended recipient must be considered, “regardless of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case” … . Here, given that the Surrogate’s Court was aware that Ross and her family would be away from her home in Sloatsburg until sometime in late September 2008, and was vacationing in Long Beach Island during that time, and given that there was no indication that Ross’s address in Long Beach Island was unavailable, in order for notice of the probate proceeding to be reasonably calculated to reach Ross, the Surrogate’s Court should have at least directed that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Long Beach Island, instead of solely directing that the supplemental citation be mailed to Ross’s address in Sloatsburg.  Matter of Skolnick, 2013 NY Slip Op 05463, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report

The Second Department determined mother did not stipulate to the order of reference (referring the custody and visitation proceeding to a referee) in the manner required by CPLR 2104.  Therefore, although the order of reference authorized the referee to “hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody … and visitation…,” absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the referee only had the power to hear and report.

…[T]he mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge… .

Accordingly, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective petition and cross petition regarding custody and visitation…. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee’s decision … must be deemed a report (see CPLR 4320[b]), and the matter must be remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 4403 before a judge of the Family Court.  Matter of McClarin v Valera, 2013 NY Slip Op 05461, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

E-Mail Met All Criteria for a Stipulation of Settlement Including the “Subscribed Writing” Requirement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, the Second Department determined an e-mail message satisfied the criteria of CPLR 2104 as a binding and enforceable stipulation of settlement.

The e-mail, written by plaintiff’s counsel, read:

“Per our phone conversation today, May 3, 2011, you accepted my offer of $230,000 to settle this case. Please have your client executed [sic] the attached Medicare form as no settlement check can be issued without this form.

“You also agreed to prepare the release, please included [sic] the following names: Xerox Corporation, Gelco Corporation, Mitchell G. Maller and Sedgwick CMS. Please forward the release and dismissal for my review. Thanks Brenda Greene.”

The court determined the phrase “Thanks Brenda Greene” rendered the e-mail a subscribed writing:

…[W]e hold that where, as here, an email message contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature, such an email message may be deemed a subscribed writing within the meaning of CPLR 2104 so as to constitute an enforceable agreement. Forcelli v Gelco Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05437, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

Dismissal of Complaint Was Too Severe a Sanction for Spoliation

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) sued a security company and others based upon a fire that apparently was started by a cigarette carelessly thrown into a wastebasket.  During discovery defendants requested the surveillance video.  Plaintiff had reviewed the video and apparently had deleted portions of it considered unnecessary.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3126 (spoliation of evidence) was granted and the complaint was dismissed.  The First Department determined dismissal of the complaint was too severe a penalty and ordered that plaintiff be precluded from using the video as evidence.  The court explained:

As a threshold issue, NYCHA unconvincingly argues that no sanction is appropriate because litigation was not pending when the video was edited. For a spoliation sanction to be applicable, there need only be the “reasonable anticipation of litigation” … . The day after the fire, [NYCHA] was already viewing and editing the video, identifying images he thought would be relevant to determine how the fire started. These actions indicate that NYCHA may have been contemplating litigation, or at least wanted to identify the culpable person, and therefore the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” … . For the purposes of a spoliation sanction, “[a] culpable state of mind . . . includes ordinary negligence”… .

Although NYCHA should be sanctioned for the destruction of portions of the surveillance video, the dismissal of the complaint was too harsh a remedy. Dismissing an action is “usually not warranted unless the evidence is crucial and the spoliator’s conduct evinces some higher degree of culpability” … . It is a “drastic sanction” and should only be done when a party has destroyed key evidence… .

The record does not support defendants’ contention that dismissal is required because the unredacted video is key evidence without which they will be “substantially prejudiced”… . New York City Hous Auth v Pro Quest Sec, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05429, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

Conspiracy to Commit Tort Not Recognized in New York

In reversing Supreme Court’s grant of a default judgment, the Fourth Department noted that “New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action.”  Piatt, PA…v Horsley…, 652, 4th Dept 7-19-13 

 

,

Court in Contract Action Does Not Have Power to Vary 9% Interest Rate

In a case with counterclaims sounding in contract and Labor Law 191-c (1) (re: payment of earned sales commissions after a contract is terminated), the Fourth Department noted that the court does not have discretion to vary the statutory 9% interest rate in a contract action:

…[W]e conclude that the court lacked discretion to vary the statutorily-prescribed interest rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004). As this Court has previously recognized, interest at the rate of 9% per annum is mandatory for “sum[s] awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract” (CPLR 5001 [a]…).  Polyfusion Electronics, Inc v Promark Eletronics, Inc…, 635.1, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

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