You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Procedure for Testing Adequacy of Causes of Action in Article 78 Petition; Criteria for Bad Faith Abolishment of Position

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner had stated a cause of action in his Article 78 proceeding for bad faith abolishment of his tenured Assistant Superintendent position.  The Third Department noted that the proper criteria for analysis in this Article 78 proceeding is the same as in a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211:

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, objections in point of law may be raised either through  a pre-answer motion  to dismiss or – as here – in the verified answer  (see CPLR  7804  [f]). Such objections are appropriately afforded review similar in nature to that applied to defenses raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).  *  *  *

A school district may abolish a position, even when this results in the discharge of a tenured employee, so long as it “has made a good faith determination based on economic considerations” … . *  *  * We agree with Supreme Court that [petitioner’s] specific and nonconclusory assertions, when deemed to be true for this purpose, were sufficient to allege that the abolition of his position “was motivated by reasons other than a desire to promote institutional efficiency and economy” and thus state a cause of action … .  Matter of Lally v Johnson City School District, 515488, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

Second Summary Judgment Motion to Address Deficiencies in First Motion Should Not Have Been Entertained

In holding that a second summary judgment motion which addressed deficiencies in the first summary judgment motion should not have been entertained, the Third Department wrote:

…[W]e agree with plaintiff that  the Town’s summary  judgment  motion  should not have  been  considered. “‘[M]ultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other  sufficient cause'”  …. Here, the Town’s second motion for summary judgment was made solely upon the added affidavit of its Highway Superintendent, which was submitted to address the deficiencies in the Town’s proof as outlined by our prior decision. However, such affidavit was not new evidence, as no reason was given why it could not have been submitted with the initial motion … . For the same reason, this evidence could not have been a valid basis to grant renewal of the first summary judgment motion … . We discern no valid purpose for allowing a successive summary judgment motion that is based solely upon a party’s belated attempt to remedy its inadequate initial proffer, without any valid explanation as to why the additional evidence was not offered in the first instance.  Keating v Town of Burke, 515400, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation

The Second Department explained the burden of proof for demonstrating documents are immune from discovery as material prepared in anticipation of litigation as follows:

“The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery” … . More particularly, “[t]he party asserting the privilege that material sought through discovery was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery … by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … . An attorney’s affirmation containing conclusory assertions that requested documents are conditionally immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, without more, is insufficient to sustain the movant’s burden of demonstrating that the materials were prepared exclusively for litigation … .  New York Schools Ins Reciprocal v Milburn Sales Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02227, 2012-01697, Index no 2848/11, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, ,

Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined a complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that an attorney’s unnotarized affirmation was submitted in opposition to the motion, rather than an affidavit:

When an attorney is a party to an action, and affidavits are required to support or oppose a request for relief, that attorney may not rely upon an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit, as the facts alleged in that affirmation would not be in admissible form (see CPLR 2106…). However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [plaintiff’s] submission of an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in opposition to the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them did not warrant the granting of that motion. “CPLR 3211 allows [a] plaintiff to submit affidavits, but it does not oblige him [or her] to do so on penalty of dismissal” … . Accordingly, [defendant’s] failure to submit an affidavit was not fatal to his opposition, and the Supreme Court should not have granted the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on that basis. Law Offs of Frishberg v Toman, 2013 NY Slip Op 02224, 2011-04956, 2011-07881, Index No 12965/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, , ,

Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained

In reversing the Surrogate’s Court verdict, the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Spain, determined that the existence of a confidential relationship with the decedent is a question of fact for the jury (Surrogate’s Court determined the existence of the relationship as a matter of law).  In addition, because the matter is to be retried, the Third Department included a useful discussion of how the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519) should be applied:

Under  the  doctrine of “‘constructive fraud,'” where  a  confidential relationship exists between  two parties to a transaction “‘such that they were dealing on unequal terms due to one party’s weakness, dependence or trust  justifiably reposed  upon  the  other  and  unfair advantage  is rendered  probable,'” the  burden  of proof  with  respect to allegations of undue influence will be shifted to the stronger party to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that no undue influence was used … In determining whether a confidential  relationship  exists,  “the  existence  of  a  family relationship does  not, per se, create a presumption  of undue influence; there must be evidence of other facts or circumstances showing  inequality  or  controlling influence” … ..The  existence of such a relationship will ordinarily be  a question of fact … . *  *  *

The [Dead Man’s] statute precludes an interested party from being “examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and  the deceased person” (CPLR 4519 …). Given that the “purpose of the rule is ‘to protect the estate of the deceased from claims of the living who, through their own perjury, could make factual assertions which the decedent could not refute in court’…, it   will not preclude any testimony elicited by the representative of the estate, nor does it preclude testimony of transactions between decedent and a non-interested third party …. Further, the statute’s protections with regard to a particular transaction may be waived where the representative “testifies in his [or her] own behalf concerning a personal transaction of his adversary with the deceased” or when he or she “elicits testimony from an interested party on the personal transaction in issue” …  .  Matter of Nealon, 513733, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Court Improperly Amended Allegations in Neglect Petition

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice McCarthy, determined Family Court improperly amended the allegations in a neglect petition:

On this record, summary judgment was improperly granted. Significantly, the  petition as  filed only  alleges that respondent neglected the children as a result of the events surrounding respondent’s March  2011 arrest. Nevertheless, Family Court granted the petition based on  “amplified” allegations of neglect that it found related to the father’s alleged untreated mental illness. No amended petition was filed nor was respondent given an opportunity to amend his answer. While a court may amend the allegations in a neglect proceeding  “to conform  to the proof[,]. . . in such case the respondent shall be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations” (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b] …). Matter of Aiden XX, 514147, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

Relation-Back” and “Savings Clause” Statutes Explained

The First Department discussed the difference between the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203(f) and the savings clause of CPLR 205(a):

In a prior appeal in this action, we held that plaintiffs could not utilize the relation-back provisions in CPLR 203(f) to cure their defective initial complaint, based on their failure to comply with the subject agreements’ condition precedent to commencing an action against Impact, since the doctrine is dependent upon the existence of a valid preexisting action .. . However, on this appeal, we find that the savings clause of CPLR 205(a) does not bar plaintiffs’ action, since the statute was “created to serve in those cases in which the prior action was defective and so had to be dismissed” … . The dismissal of the prior action for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a condition precedent was not a judgment on the merits …, and plaintiff commenced a new action within the six-month period required by CPLR 205(a).  Southern Wine & Spirits of Am, Inc v Impact Envtl Eng’g, PLLC, 2013 NY Slip Op o2i46, 9651, 650083/10, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

, ,

Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt

The First Department noted that a judicial hearing officer (JHO) does not have the power to find any person in contempt except a witness before him:

While CPLR 4311 and 4317(a) give a referee, upon consent of the parties, the power to hear and determine all trial issues before the court, CPLR 4301 specifically precludes a referee and, thus, a JHO from “adjudg[ing] any person except a witness before him guilty of contempt.” While [the JHO] had the power to make factual findings concerning violation of his orders, he was without power to adjudge persons in contempt because neither contempt finding involved behavior occurring before him … .  Hoffman v Helm Capital Group, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02141, 603109/08, 9537A, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

Excuse for Default Found Inadequate

The Second Department determined the motion court erred when it found defendant’s excuse for default in appearing or answering adequate:

While the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, a general assertion that the default was occasioned by the defendant’s insurance broker or liability carrier is insufficient … . Here, the defendant’s unsubstantiated claims that he believed that his insurance broker had forwarded the summons and complaint to his insurer and that his insurer was providing a defense are unreasonable given that the defendant was served with the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment … .   Spitzer v Landau, 2013 NY Slip Op 02067, 2012-05686, Index No 001868/11, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

,

Defaulting Party Can Give Testimony and Present Evidence at Damages Proceeding 

The defendant’s answer in a partition action was struck due to his failure to comply with disclosure requests and court orders.  At the inquest the defendant was allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses but was not allowed give testimony or offer proof in mitigation of the alleged damages.  The Second Department wrote:

[A] defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages'” … . Indeed, where an entry of a default judgment against a defendant is made after an application to the court, the defendant is entitled to a ” full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony and offer proof in mitigation of damages'” … .  Rawlings v Gillert, 2013 NY Slip Op 02063, 2011-11951, Index No 7570/08, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

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