You are here: / Civil Procedure

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

 

Action Abandoned, Should Not Have Been Restored

In determining an action had been abandoned and should not have been restored, even though there had been a stipulation to restore the action, the Second Department wrote:

Where, as here, an action has been marked “off” the trial calendar, and more than one year has passed without its restoration to the trial calendar, the action shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed (see CPLR 3404). A plaintiff subsequently seeking to restore an action to the trial calendar must demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant … .

Although the stipulation to restore this action provides some indication that the plaintiff did not intend to abandon it when it was first marked “off,” and there was sporadic activity over the period, in excess of five years, between the automatic dismissal and the motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404… . Saint Mary Byzantine Catholic Church v Kalin, 2013 NY Slip Op 06355, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

Plaintiff Should Have Been Granted Extension to Serve Summons and Complaint Three Days After 120-Day Period Expired

The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been granted an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint where the statute of limitations ran out between the commencement of the action and the service.  The Second Department further determined that service of one copy of the summons and complaint upon an officer of defendant corporation (MBRI) was valid for both the corporation and the officer:

The defendants contend that MBRI was never served with a copy of the summons and complaint. We disagree. Service of one copy of a summons and complaint upon an officer of a corporation constitutes service upon the corporation itself as well as upon the individual officer, where, as here, there was simultaneous compliance with CPLR 311(a)(1) and CPLR 308(1) … .Here, MBRI was served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) when the plaintiff’s process server delivered the summons and complaint to the individual defendant, an officer of MBRI. Accordingly, the method employed to serve MBRI was proper and, thus, that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against MBRI for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been denied.

In this case, where the statute of limitations expired between the time that the action was commenced and the time that the copy of the summons and complaint was served, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon MBRI nunc pro tunc to September 11, 2011, should have been granted in the interest of justice … . The copy of the summons and complaint was served only 3 days after the 120-day time period of CPLR 306-b had expired, the plaintiff promptly sought relief after receiving the answer, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to MBRI attributable to the delay in service … .  Fernandez v Morales Bros Realty Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06345, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

, ,

Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested

In a partition action, the First Department determined Supreme Court ordered relief which went too far beyond the relief requested in the motion papers and explained the relevant principles:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), a court may relieve a party from an order or judgment, but only “on motion of [an] interested person” and “with such notice as the court may direct” (CPLR 5015[a] [emphasis added]…). ” Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party, or is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based. However, a trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment'” … . Likewise, while a court “may grant relief, pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion or order to show cause, other than that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts plainly appearing [in] the papers on both sides,” it may do so only “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, and if the proof offered supports it and the court is satisfied that no one has been prejudiced by the formal omission to demand it specifically” … .  Carter v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

 

, ,

Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition barring a retrial of the defendant because the judge ordered a mistrial without the consent of the defendant based upon a comment made by defense counsel in summation. The First Department determined the comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the mistrial:

Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been selected and sworn … . When a mistrial is declared without the consent or over the objection of a criminal defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution bars retrial for the same offense or offenses unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated … . Here, as the People concede, counsel’s summation comment was not overly prejudicial and provided no basis for a mistrial on “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice” grounds. Matter of Smith v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 06329, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

,

Failure to Serve Claim by Certified Mail Deprived Court of Claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissal of an action for failure to comply with the statutory service-of-claim-by-certified-mail requirement.  The court noted that the court never gained subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the CPLR 3211 (e) waiver provision, which addressed personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction, did not apply:

…[C]laimants served their claim on the Attorney General by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11. Defendant’s answer raised the defense that the court lacked, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction based on claimants’ improper service, and defendant later moved to dismiss the claim on that ground.  Claimants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order deeming the service corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001. The court granted defendant’s motion and denied claimants’ cross motion, and we now affirm.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against the State of New York must serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested.  It is well settled that “nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary” … .  Inasmuch as the claim herein was served by regular mail, the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim … . Contrary to claimants’ contention, defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper service, made approximately 20 months after service of its answer, was not precluded by the 60-day waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (e).  The failure to comply with the service requirements in the Court of Claims Act “result[s] not in a failure of personal jurisdiction, . . . but in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction[,] which may not be waived”… . Zoeckler…, v State of New York, 883, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand Required Dismissal of the Action

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint after a demand should have been granted:

“To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action” … . Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden with respect to either prong of that test.  Concerning the first part of the test, plaintiff asserted that she delayed in filing the complaint because she did not receive defendant’s demand for the complaint.  In our view, that excuse is not reasonable… .  Service of the demand for the complaint was complete upon – mailing (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]), and defendant’s submission in support of its motion of a proper affidavit of service of the demand entitled it to the presumption that a proper mailing occurred … .  We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s mere denial of receipt of the demand was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Even assuming, arguendo, that nonreceipt of the demand was a reasonable excuse, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action with a verified complaint or an affidavit of merit, and thus dismissal of the action is required… . Dunlop v Saint Leo the Great, RC Church, 865, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

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