You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

Assumption of Duty to Maintain Sidewalk; No Expert Notice Needed for Treating Physician

In reversing a judgment after a jury trial in a slip and fall case, the First Department discussed several issues that came up in the trial, including the denial of a missing witness charge with respect to one of the defense doctors, a translation problem raised by the translator (which may have given the jury the misimpression plaintiff was confused about an important issue), the assumption by the defendant Department of Education (DOE) of a duty to make the sidewalk outside a school (where plaintiff fell) safe, and the trial court’s ruling that one of plaintiff’s treating physicians could not testify because no “expert witness” notice was provided.  In addressing the school’s assumption of a duty with respect to the condition of the sidewalk and the exclusion of plaintiff’s treating physician, the First Department wrote:

The DOE argues on appeal that the action should have been dismissed as against it because it did not own the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. New York City Charter § 521(a) provides that “title to all property … acquired for school or educational purpose … shall be vested in the city, but under the care and control of the board of education for the purposes of public education, recreation and other public uses.” Education Law § 2554(4) affirmatively charges the DOE with responsibility for “the care, custody, control and safekeeping of all school property or other property of the city used for educational, social or recreational work.” ……[W]here there was evidence that the DOE affirmatively undertook the duty to maintain the sidewalk, the court was well within its discretion in submitting the question of the DOE’s negligence to the jury ….

CPLR 3101(d)(1) provides that, upon request, parties must identify those expected to be called as experts and “disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify … and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” However, the failure to serve a CPLR 3101(d) notice with regard to a treating physician, such as Dr. Geller, is not grounds for preclusion of the physician’s expert testimony as to causation where there has been disclosure of the physician’s records and reports, pursuant to CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 … .  Hamer v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 03431, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

, ,

In-Court Stipulation Enforceable Even Though Party Not Represented by Counsel​ 

The Third Department upheld an in-court stipulation concerning a mortgage foreclosure action that was entered without counsel:

Open court stipulations of settlement are highly favored, binding on  the parties and  strictly enforced, and generally will not be  cast aside absent a showing  of “fraud, collusion, mistake or accident” … .The fact that a party was not represented by counsel when entering into a  stipulation, while certainly relevant, is not sufficient  in  itself to  invalidate  a  stipulation,  particularly where the party was advised to retain counsel and chose not to … Liquori v Liquori, 515502, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

,

Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine 

The Third Department, in reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of privity precluded the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Northrop owned a gas station which was a designated spill site (gasoline). The Department of Environmental Conservation spent about $125,000 cleaning it up. Northrop sought payment for the clean-up from its insurance carrier (the defendant here). In a prior declaratory judgment proceeding Supreme Court determined the policy did not cover petroleum contamination. Then the state, the plaintiff here, started an action against the defendant insurance company under Navigation Law 190 seeking reimbursement of the clean-up expenses.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the prior declaratory judgment finding the insurance policy did not cover the clean-up expense).  In reversing, finding collateral estoppel should not have been invoked because Northrop and the state were not in privity, the Third Department wrote:

Plaintiff is the entity that has undertaken the cleanup and now seeks reimbursement for monies expended. Thus, plaintiff has a right of indemnification against Northport to recoup these costs …, establishing an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship. Plaintiff’s right of indemnification,  however, is independent of Northport’s contractual right to have its insurance carrier, defendant, cover these costs under the terms of the liability insurance  policy. Moreover, Navigation Law § 190 authorizes plaintiff to commence a direct action against defendant, and this right is independent of plaintiff’s right of indemnification against Northport. Given that plaintiff’s rights are not conditioned upon and do not derive from Northport’s, the existence of an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship between Northport and plaintiff does not establish privity between these parties.  State of New York v Zurich American Insurance Company, 514916, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

, ,

Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable

The Second Department determined the statute of frauds barred the real-property-related action and, since the action was brought “at law,” the equitable “part performance” doctrine could not be applied:

Here, the County established, prima facie, that there is no extant writing subscribed by the County or its agent referencing an alleged oral agreement involving real property, as described by the plaintiff (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[3];…). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Part performance by the party seeking to enforce [a] contract [for the sale of real property] may be sufficient in some circumstances to overcome the statute of frauds, but only in an action for specific performance” (…see General Obligations Law § 5-703[4];…). Since, here, the action is pleaded as one at law, and seeks only money damages, without any specific prayer for equitable relief, the plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of part performance to defeat the statute of frauds defense …. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the statute of frauds. Zito v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 03324, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

Defective Release Did Not Trigger 90-Day Clock for Payment of Settlement Amount

The Second Department determined that a release that was defective because it excluded subrogation claims did not start the 90-day clock, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a(e), for payment of the settlement amount:

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the general release provided by the plaintiff was defective, since it expressly excluded potential subrogation claims against the defendant. Therefore, it was insufficient to trigger the 90-day period within which the defendant was required to make payment of the settlement amount, and, accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek a judgment based on nonpayment under CPLR 5003-a(e)… . Pitt v New York City Hous Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03311, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

 

Denial of Motion for Severance Upheld—Defendant Suing for Two Types of Injuries Allegedly Linked to Two Different Groups of Defendants​

In this case the plaintiff alleged his injuries were the result of exposure to coal tar pitch and asbestos “while employed as a laborer in the carbon electrode industry.”  The complaint separated the defendants into two groups, three companies were named with respect to the coal tar pitch (the appellants), and the other defendants were named with respect to the asbestos.  The appellants appealed the denial of their severance motion.  In affirming the denial of severance, the Fourth Department wrote:

“The determination of whether to grant or deny a request for a severance pursuant to CPLR 603 is a matter of judicial discretion, which should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of the party seeking the severance” The burden is on the party seeking the severance to show that “a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice” …Severance is appropriate where “individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each [defendant] . . . [and there] is the possibility of confusion for the jury” …. Here, although appellants contended that a joint trial might result in juror confusion and would be inappropriate because plaintiff’s alleged injuries with respect to his exposure to coal tar pitch fumes and to asbestos were distinct, they did not satisfy their burden of establishing that a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice.  In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Niagara Insulations, Inc, et al, CA 12-01809, 238, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action which Accrued Anew Each Time a Payment Was Missed for Statute of Limitations Purposes—Plaintiff Could Sue Only for Missed Payments Going Back Six Years from When Payments Began

Pursuant to a divorce, plaintiff was entitled to a share of her husband’s pension benefits starting in 1991.  Plaintiff did not start receiving the payments until 2005.  She did not bring an action on the unpaid benefits between 1991 and 2005 until 2010.  The Fourth Department determined that a cause of action for the unpaid benefits accrued anew when each payment was missed.  Because the statute of limitations is six years, the plaintiff could sue only for the unpaid benefits which accrued during the six years prior to when her action was started in 2010.  Bielecki v Bielecki, CA 12-01393, 264, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators

In a lead-paint injury case, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted a motion to preclude evidence of plaintiff’s mental or physical condition unless plaintiff provided defendant with so-called “speaking authorizations” allowing defendant to communicate with non-party healthcare providers about the plaintiff’s injuries.  However, the Fourth Department did not agree with Supreme Court’s grant of the same motion with respect to non-party educators (two justices dissented on that issue):

In Arons v Jutkowitz …, the Court of Appeals provided the framework for conducting discovery with regard to nonparty healthcare providers, which includes the use of speaking authorizations. Arons, however, does not authorize defendant to obtain speaking authorizations for plaintiff’s educators. We decline to extend Arons to require production of speaking authorizations to anyone other than nonparty healthcare providers. The Arons decision is narrow in scope and provides a framework as to how parties must procedurally comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 when attempting to speak with an adverse party’s treating physician. Defendant made no showing that the discovery devices available under the CPLR and the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts were inadequate to obtain the necessary discovery. McCarter v Woods, CA 12-00678, 1117, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Okay to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Medical Reports Linking Injury to Lead Paint or Be Precluded from Introducing Such Evidence

In a lead-paint injury action, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce medical reports linking the injuries to lead and to provide an amended bill of particulars to reflect those injuries. In the alternative the defendants moved to preclude proof of plaintiff’s injuries in the absence of such medical reports.  Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and the Fourth Department affirmed.  In addition, the Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court was not required to take judicial notice of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 USC 4851), which provides a private right of action for lead-related damages, because plaintiff was not “relying” on the statute.  Hamilton v Miller…, CA 12-01574, 355, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, ,

Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department held that a town zoning ordinance which banned “all activities which related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum,” passed in response to concern over “hydrofracking,”  was not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) (ECL 23-0301, et seq).  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the legislative history of the preemption language in the OGMSL, as well as the concepts of express, implied and conflict preemption. Norse Energy Corp, USA v Town of Dryden, et al, 515227, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

For identical reasons, a similar ordinance enacted by the Town of Middlefield was held valid by the Third Department.  Cooperstown Holstein Corp v Town of Middlefield, 515498, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

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