You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

Action Properly Brought by Third Party Beneficiary of Indemnity Agreement

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss brought by a defendant who had entered an indemnity agreement with a judgment debtor.  The Second Department explained that plaintiff had stated a cause of action based upon plaintiff’s being a third-party beneficiary of the indemnity agreement:

Pursuant to CPLR 5227, a special proceeding may be commenced by a judgment creditor “against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor.” Such a proceeding is properly asserted against one who agreed to indemnify the judgment debtor in the underlying proceeding. The judgment creditor stands in the judgment debtor’s shoes, and may enforce the obligations owed to the judgment debtor by the indemnifying party… * * *.

Here …the judgment debtor … was not a party to the indemnification agreement. However, the Supreme Court properly determined that [the judgment debtor] was an intended third-party beneficiary of the indemnification agreement. Parties asserting third-party beneficiary rights under a contract must establish: (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties; (2) that the contract was intended for their benefit; and (3) that the benefit to them is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate them if the benefit is lost…. Where performance is rendered directly to a third party, it is presumed that the third party is an intended beneficiary of the contract….

Indemnity contracts are to be strictly construed to avoid reading into them duties which the parties did not intend to be assumed…. Here, however, the intent … to benefit [the judgment debtor] is apparent from the face of the indemnification agreement… . Matter of White Plains Plaza Realty LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05220, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

,

Family Court Had Jurisdiction But New York Not a Convenient Forum

The Second Department determined Family Court’s finding that it did not have jurisdiction (over a visitation petition) under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act was error.  But the Second Department went on to determine that New York was an inconvenient forum for the proceeding:

A New York Family Court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination if “(a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent . . . continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a]). ” Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]).

…”[T]he inquiry is not completed merely by a determination that a jurisdictional predicate exists in the forum State, for then the court must determine whether to exercise its jurisdiction” … . A court of this state which has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA may decline to exercise it if it finds, upon consideration of certain enumerated factors, that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1];…). While the Family Court did not consider the enumerated factors, the record is sufficient to permit this Court to consider and evaluate those factors…

…[T]he “evidence regarding [the children’s] care, well-being, and personal relationships is more readily available” in Georgia… Under these circumstances, Georgia is the more appropriate and convenient forum … . Matter of Balde v Barry, 2013 NY slip Op 05204, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Order to Compel Acceptance of Answer Upheld—Delay Caused by Insurance Carrier is Valid Excuse—Precedent to the Contrary Overruled

In a personal injury action, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s order compelling plaintiff to accept the answer as timely.  In so finding, the Fourth Department noted that a prior decision holding that a delay caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier is not a reasonable excuse should no longer be followed:

It is well settled that “ ‘[p]ublic policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party’ ”….  Furthermore, “[t]he determination whether an excuse is reasonable lies within the sound discretion of the motion court”…. Here, defendant met her burden with respect to a meritorious defense by demonstrating that there is factual support for her defenses… .  * * *

Insofar as we indicated in our decision in Smolinski v Smolinski (13 AD3d 1188, 1189) that “ ‘an excuse that the delay in appearing or answering was caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier is insufficient’ ” to establish a reasonable excuse for a delay in answering, it is no longer to be followed. Rather, the determination whether delay caused by an insurer constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default in answering lies “in the discretion of the court in the interests of justice” (Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290; see CPLR 2005).   Accetta v Simmons, 676, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Law Office Failure Can Be a Valid Excuse Re: Vacating a Default Judgment

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment, the Fourth Department explained that law office failure can be excused:

The court erred in rejecting that excuse on the ground that “law office failure is not an excuse that is accepted by the Court of Appeals.”    It is well established that law office failure may be excused, in the court’s discretion, when deciding a motion to vacate a default order (see CPLR 2005;…). With respect to other relevant factors, we note that defendants had contested plaintiff’s claims in federal court for more than a year before this action was recommenced in Supreme Court, and their attorneys had filed timely notices of appearances in Supreme Court and had been communicating with plaintiff’s attorney before the answer was due. We further note that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendants’ inadvertent default, and that the extent of the delay was minimal. Calaci v Allied Interstate, Inc…, 750, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Allowed—Prejudice in this Context Explained

In reversing Supreme Court in a case concerning whether an assault was covered under an insurance policy, the Fourth Department determined the defendant insurance company’s motion for leave to amend its answer should have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied.  After finding that the amendment was meritorious, the Fourth Department explained how to analyze whether an amendment would “prejudice” the defendant:

“ ‘Prejudice may be found where a party has incurred some change in position or hindrance in the preparation of its case which could have been avoided had the original pleading contained the proposed amendment’ ”… . Here, the alleged prejudice would not have been avoided had the original answer contained the proposed amendment.    “[T]he fact that an amended pleading may defeat a party’s cause of action is not a sufficient basis for denying [a] motion to amend”….  Williams… v New York Central Fire Insurance Company, 705, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Attorney’s Illness Was Adequate Excuse—Vacation of Preclusion Order Allowed

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s allowing plaintiff in a medical malpractice action to respond to discovery demands, after the court had precluded plaintiff for not responding.  Plaintiff’s attorney’s illness provided a reasonable excuse, and the expert’s affirmation (later converted to an affidavit as directed by the court) demonstrated a meritorious action:

“It is well established that the illness of an attorney may constitute a reasonable excuse for a default… . In support of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel averred that, from early 2010 until shortly before his motion to vacate the default order, he was suffering from recurring health issues stemming from two heart attacks, a serious infection requiring hospitalization, and uncontrolled Type II diabetes. According to counsel, those medical issues “affected [his] health in an ongoing manner and prevented [him] from diligently and timely responding to [defendants’] demands in this case.” There is no evidence that counsel’s neglect in this case was “willful, contumacious or manifested bad faith” … . Particularly in light of New York’s “strong public policy . . . [in favor of] disposing of cases on their merits”…, we conclude that “[w]here, as here, there is no evidence of willfulness, deliberate default, or prejudice to the defendants, the interest of justice is best served by permitting the case to be decided on its merits” ….  Loucks v Klimek, 477, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection (granting the Article 78 prohibition petition), the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a “valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal” ….  ” [W]hen a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial'”…. “However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial”… .”Manifest necessity” means “a high degree of necessity”; “the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial” …. ” Even if the reasons for granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'”…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to “great deference” …, since “the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality”…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must “temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate” … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Factual Question About Whether Family Court Had Jurisdiction Over Visitation Modification Where Supreme Court Originally Ordered Visitation

In remitting the matter to Family Court, the Second Department determined Family Court should have examined the evidence to determine whether it had jurisdiction over a petition to modify visitation where the initial visitation determination was part of a divorce action in Supreme Court:

The Family Court erred in declining to sign the order to show cause accompanying the father’s petition to modify visitation …. Since the initial visitation determination in this matter was made as part of a stipulation of settlement entered into during the parties’ divorce proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was error for the Family Court to summarily decline to sign the order to show cause on jurisdictional grounds. Instead, the Family Court should have signed the order to show cause and then directed the parties to submit evidence on the issue of whether the Family Court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the visitation issues…. Matter of Ramirez v Gunder, 2013 NY Slip Op 05086, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

Summary Judgment Premature—Disclosure Necessary

In finding Supreme Court should have treated defendant’s motion, which was made after issue was joined, as a motion for summary judgment (not a motion to dismiss), the Second Department determined the motion should not have been granted because facts essential to oppose the motion may exist but could not yet be stated:

An award of summary judgment would be premature at this stage of the case. CPLR 3212(f) permits a court to deny a motion for summary judgment where it appears that the facts essential to oppose the motion “exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212[f];…). ” This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion'”…. Here, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was made prior to the parties conducting depositions. Since the plaintiffs had no personal knowledge of the relevant facts, they should be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, including depositions of the defendant’s employees and other witnesses that were present during the incident complained of….  Wesolowski v St Francis Hosp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05061, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

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