You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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

 

, ,

Fact that Medical Guidelines May Be Available to the Public Does Not Warrant Denial of Discovery of Such Documents from the Defendant

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court had erred in denying certain of plaintiff’s discovery demands in a medical malpractice case alleging injuries sustained by infant plaintiff during birth.  The materials deemed material and necessary (and not unduly burdensome to produce) included: standards for fetal monitoring and pediatric advancement of life support; a protocol entitled “Circulating Vaginal Delivery;” interpretation and management of fetal heart rate patterns; and specified guidelines and standards published by medical associations.  The Fourth Department noted that the fact that standards and guidelines may be available to the public is not a ground for denying discovery.  The court explained the discovery criteria generally as follows:

…[W]e note that CPLR 3101 requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]).  The phrase “ ‘material and necessary should be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason’ ”… .  “Entitlement to discovery of matter satisfying the threshold requirement is, however, tempered by the trial court’s authority to impose, in its discretion, appropriate restrictions on demands which are unduly burdensome . . . and to prevent abuse by issuing a protective order where the discovery request may cause unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts”  (…see CPLR 3103 [a]).  In opposing a motion to compel discovery, a party must “establish that the requests for information are unduly burdensome, or that they may cause unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts” (…see generally CPLR 3103 [a]).  Rawlins…v St Joseph’s Hospital Health Center…, 659, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, ,

Supreme Court’s Setting Aside Jury Verdict Reversed; Use of Juror-Affidavits to Correct Mistake in Verdict Okay

In a medical malpractice case, the Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s setting aside the jury verdict which found the negligence of one defendant (Caputo) was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. In addition, over a dissent, the Fourth Department found the use of juror affidavits to correct a mistake in the verdict was proper.  The Fourth Department wrote:

“A verdict finding that a defendant was negligent but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the [plaintiff’s injuries] is against the weight of the evidence only when [those] issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause”….  “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .  Here, plaintiffs alleged four different theories of negligence against Dr. Caputo, and we conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that Dr. Caputo was negligent in failing to provide [the] resident staff with adequate information concerning the operative procedure and plaintiff’s postoperative care, but that such failures were not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries… .

…[T]he court properly granted plaintiffs’ “supplemental motion” to correct the verdict with respect to the award of damages for plaintiff’s future pain and suffering.  In support of the “supplemental motion,” plaintiffs submitted affidavits from all six jurors, who averred that they understood and agreed that plaintiff would receive $60,000 per year for a period of 30 years, not a total of $60,000 over the course of that period….  We acknowledge that “public policy concerns disfavor the use of juror affidavits for posttrial impeachment of a verdict” … .  Here, however, “[t]he information afforded by the affidavits of the jurors is not to impeach, but to support the verdict really given by them”… .  Butterfield v Caputo, et a;l, 602, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s striking of defendant’s answer as a penalty for defendant’s not appearing at a pre-trial conference as ordered:

Generally speaking, and based upon sound underlying policy, there is a strong judicial preference for determination of issues upon the merits ….  Consistent with this policy, defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s directive for in-person appearance at a pretrial conference is not punishable by an order striking the pleadings. The applicable rule instead specifically authorizes the court only to deem a party’s failure to comply  “a default under  CPLR  3404,” which  results in removal  of the case from  the trial calendar (22 NYCRR 202.26 [e]…).  CBA Properties LLC v Global Airlines Services Inc, 515868, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

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