, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to identify police officers as the “John Doe, Jane Doe” defendants in this 18 USC 1983 false arrest and unlawful search case should not have been granted. The statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply—police officers are not united in interest with the city:

CPLR 1024 provides that a “party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.” “Yet, ‘parties are not to resort to the “Jane Doe” procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so. Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the “Jane Doe’s” name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party'” … .

Here, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the defendants were identified in the second amended complaint. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the relation-back doctrine does not apply, because the defendants are not united in interest with the City … . The City “cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983, and there is no unity of interest in the absence of a relationship giving rise to such vicarious liability” … . Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he made diligent efforts to ascertain the defendants’ identities prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations or that the City hindered any such efforts … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s prior orders allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add the then-unknown defendants by name within a certain time period are not binding on these issues. The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind an appellate court … . Agosto v Maria, 2024 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Here the motion to amend the complaint to identify “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants as police officers should have been denied because the statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply because police officers are not united in interest with the city which employs them.

 

,

A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined: “[a] lienholder nonparty to an action that resulted in a fee award against a debtor may challenge the legal basis of the judgment in a separate proceeding to recover those fees. We conclude that because the nonparty was neither joined nor required to intervene in the action against the debtor, it had no prior opportunity to challenge the award and thus is not barred from doing so in this proceeding … “.  Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 05876, CtApp 11-26-24

 

, ,

IN THIS FIRE-DAMAGE CASE, THE INSURANCE POLICY IMPOSED A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD; THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING WHY THE RESTORATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint in this fire-damage case was properly dismissed because the contractual two-year limitation period was exceeded and plaintiff made only conclusory allegations that the repairs could not be made within that two-year period:

On this motion to dismiss, the Tower/AmTrust defendants met their burden of establishing, by reference to the contract’s two-year suit limitation provision, that the action was time-barred because plaintiff did not commence it within two years of the fire, utterly refuting plaintiff’s factual allegations … . Nothing in plaintiff’s response raised any issue as to whether the provision should bar her claims. Plaintiff’s allegation that “[g]iven the massive structural damage wrought by the fire, the restoration of [plaintiff’s] property would have been [a] multi-year process under even the best of circumstances” is a conclusory statement that the suit limitation provision was unreasonable and is not logically inconsistent with the replacement of the property within the two-year limitation period. Here, plaintiff failed to allege actions that she took to complete the repairs within two years; she did not provide any details regarding the extent of the damage, other than that the damage was “massive” and the fire set off four alarms, or why complete restoration within two years was an impossibility. This bare-bones allegation stands in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s factual assertions in [Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (22 NY3d 511)]. There, the plaintiff pleaded the specific remedial actions taken to restore the property, including retaining an architect and construction company, submitting a variance application, and seeking and obtaining building permits, which were not issued until 20 months after the property damage … . Most importantly, that plaintiff provided that these remedial actions were taken within the limitation period. All of this information is notably absent from plaintiff’s pleadings and motion response here. Farage v Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05875, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insurance contract imposed a two-year limitation on claims for the cost of fire-damage repair. Plaintiff did not bring the action until six years after the fire. The complaint was properly dismissed because it did not provide any details explaining why the repairs could not have been made during the two-year limitation period.

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

,

A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, remanding the matter to Supreme Court, determined the combined motion to reargue and motion to renew was properly brought. The motion to reargue was properly denied, but the motion could should have considered the motion to renew:

A combined motion for leave to reargue and renew is permitted so long as each branch of the motion is separately identified and supported (CPLR 2221 [f]). Here, the motion court considered plaintiff’s combined motion to be “couched” as one for reargument and improvidently failed to address or analyze plaintiff’s application for renewal.

Plaintiff in this case submitted a medical expert’s affidavit as new or additional facts not included on the motion to vacate, which this Court in the past has deemed to be sufficient to support a motion to renew … . As plaintiff properly submitted a combined motion for reargument and renewal, CPLR 2221 (f) required the court to “decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made.” Pellerano v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05899, First Department 11-26-24

Practice Point: It is proper to combine a motion to reargue and a motion to renew. The motions should be considered separately. Here the denial of the motion to reargue was proper but the motion to renew should also have been considered. The matter was remanded.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL IN A STATEWIDE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT (SCR) PROCEEDING; THE STATUTE REQURING EXPUNGEMENT OF AN SCR CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT IF THE RELATED FAMILY COURT CASE IS DISMISSED DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THE MALTREATMENT REPORT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined (1) petitioner was not entitled to counsel at the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR) administrative hearing, (2) the amendment to the Social Services Law [Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [ii]] requiring expungement of a child maltreatment report after a related dismissal in Family Court did not apply retroactively, and (3) the report was supported by the evidence:

ACS [New York City Administration for Children’s Services] commenced a Family Court article 10 neglect proceeding against petitioner and her husband, who had custody of T. and her younger sisters. Family Court authorized an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), which allows the court to adjourn the proceedings for a period not exceeding one year “with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice” (Family Court Act § 1039 [b]). In February of 2020, Family Court dismissed the article 10 proceeding upon the expiration of the adjournment period based on petitioner’s satisfactory compliance with Family Court’s conditions, including completion of parenting and anger management classes.

Meanwhile, the police officer who interviewed T. made a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). One of the SCR’s primary purposes is to inform child care providers and agencies that a person has a substantiated report of child abuse or maltreatment “for the purpose of regulating their future employment or licensure” … . In July of 2019, ACS determined that the report against petitioner was indicated … and petitioner challenged that determination … . After an internal administrative review, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) concluded that a fair preponderance of the evidence supported a determination that petitioner had maltreated T. and that the maltreatment was relevant and reasonably related to employment, licensure, or certification in the child care field … . Matter of Jeter v Poole, 2024 NY Slip Op 05868, CtApp 11-25-24

Practice Point: Petitioner was not entitled to counsel in a SCR child maltreatment proceeding.

Practice Point: The Social Services Law statute which requires expungement of a maltreatment report if the related Family Court proceeding is dismissed does not apply retroactively.

 

, ,

NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION CANNOT ASSERT THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DEFENSE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE ACCIDENT INVOLVED A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION BUS AND OCCURRED IN NEW YORK CITY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over two concurrences and a dissent, determined the New Jersey Transit Corporation could not assert the sovereign immunity defense in this traffic-accident case:

In Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v Hyatt, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the text and structure of the Federal Constitution not only preserved States’ pre-ratification sovereign immunity, but compelled absolute recognition of that immunity in other States’ courts as a matter of “equal dignity and sovereignty” … . However, the Court did not address how to determine whether a state-created entity is entitled to this immunity. We glean from the Court’s analysis that the relevant inquiry is whether subjecting a state-created entity to suit in New York would offend that State’s dignity as a sovereign. We hold that, to answer this question, courts must analyze how the State defines the entity and its functions, its power to direct the entity’s conduct, and the effect on the State of a judgment against the entity. Considering these factors, we conclude that maintaining this action against defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) in our courts would not offend New Jersey’s sovereign dignity and accordingly hold that defendants are not entitled to invoke a sovereign immunity defense. On February 9, 2017, a bus owned and operated by NJT allegedly struck and injured plaintiff Jeffrey Colt as he traversed a crosswalk on 40th Street in Manhattan. The bus was driven by defendant Ana Hernandez, an employee of NJT. Colt and his wife, plaintiff Betsy Tsai, commenced this action on September 18, 2017, asserting causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. Defendants answered the complaint and denied many of plaintiffs’ factual allegations. Defendants asserted—as part of an exhaustive list including many boilerplate defenses—that plaintiffs’ recovery was “barred by lack of jurisdiction over NJT” and “barred as this Court lacks jurisdiction,” and that defendants were “immune from suit.” Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05867, CtApp 11-25-24

Practice Point: Here the New Jersey Transit Corporation could not invoke the sovereign immunity defense to a New York City traffic accident involving a New Jersey Transit Corporation bus.

 

, ,

THE PEBBLES ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE” AND A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MECHANICS OF THE 30-DAY COURT-OF-APPEALS “APPEAL CLOCK” EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRONIC FILING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action, determined the loose pebbles on which plaintiff slipped were not “inherent in the work” and, therefore, the Industrial Code provisions prohibiting “foreign substances” and “slippery conditions” applied.  In addition, the Court of Appeals held one party’s appeal to the Court was untimely and explained how the 30-day appeal clock works with electronic filing:

* * * To be effective to start CPLR 5513 (b)’s 30-day clock, service must comply with CPLR 2103. CPLR 2103 (b) (7), in turn, empowers the Chief Administrative Judge to authorize electronic service. * * * … [I]n an electronic filing case, service via filing on the NYSCEF docket for the trial court is effective to start CPLR 5513 (b)’s 30-day clock. * * *

Plaintiff testified … that, while attempting to install a 500-pound glass panel into a metal channel cut into the floor of the construction site, he slipped on concrete pebbles—that he believed came from the installation of the metal channel—and sustained injuries to his spine. …

… {Defendants] failed to demonstrate that the concrete pebbles that allegedly created the slipping hazard were integral to the work, because they did not conclusively show that the pebbles were “inherent to the task at hand, and not . . . avoidable without obstructing the work or imperiling the worker” … . As to … Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d), [defendants] did not demonstrate that the concrete pebbles were not a “foreign substance” because, at the time of the alleged injury, the pebbles were “not a component of the [floor] and w[ere] not necessary to the [floor]’s functionality” … . [Defendants] did not demonstrate that the pebbles did not cause a “slippery condition” … . Regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e) (2), this provision is not limited to “tripping” hazards … . Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05866, CtApp 11-25-24

Practice Point: The pebbles on which plaintiff slipped were not integral to the work and met the criteria for a “foreign substance” and “slippery condition” in the Industrial Code.

Practice Point. Consult this decision for an explanation of the mechanics of the 30-day period for taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals in the context of electronic filing.

 

, , ,

THE PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE A VENUE CONTRACT PROVISION HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURE IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY; HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE SIGNATURE WAS AUTHENTIC AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE FORGERY ALLEGATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant demonstrated the contract which included a venue provision was signed by the decedent and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact about whether the signature was forged. The court noted that contractual choice of venue provisions are generally enforceable and provided some insight into how a forgery question-of-fact can be raised:

Forum selection clauses may designate a jurisdiction, such as the federal or state court system, or the clause may designate a venue within the State, as was done here by specifying Nassau County as the proper venue … .* * *

… [T]he party moving for a change of venue under CPLR 501 is in effect seeking to enforce a contractual provision. For that reason, … the proponent of the motion bears the initial burden to establish the authenticity of the writing for purposes of a motion to enforce a contractual venue provision … . This may be done through any of the recognized methods of authentication, including, but not limited to, the testimony of a witness who was present at the time of the signing, an admission of authenticity, proof of handwriting, and, as particularly relevant here, through circumstantial evidence … . * * *

Although an expert opinion is not required to raise an issue of fact as to forgery , the movant must nevertheless offer “[s]omething more than a bald assertion,” and in this regard conclusory or self-serving affidavits are inadequate … . Plaintiff offered only an affidavit in which he claimed to be “familiar” with decedent’s handwriting. Based on a summary of certain perceived inconsistencies in the signatures and initials on the agreements, plaintiff asserted that “whoever the person or people who signed and initialed these pages may have been, it was not my mother.” Attached to the affirmation is an undated “exemplar” of what is purportedly decedent’s signature, but no effort is made to establish that the exemplar represents decedent’s signature at the relevant time. Furthermore, the exemplar is purportedly decedent’s handwritten signature, and … electronic signatures may naturally differ from handwritten one … . Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05870, CtApp 

Practice Point: Contractual provisions designating venue are enforceable.

Practice Point: To enforce a contractual venue provision, in the face of a forgery allegation, the moving party must demonstrate the signature is authentic.

Practice Point: Bald assertions of forgery unsupported by any evidence will not raise a triable question of fact on the forgery issue.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NONHEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, agreed the hearsay evidence identifying respondent as the assailant was not sufficient to support the juvenile delinquency petition, the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice:

… Family Court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice. “Where a petition is dismissed as jurisdictionally defective, dismissal is generally without prejudice, and the presentment agency’s proper recourse is to refile the petition” … . The court indicated that the error here was “egregious” because there were no nonhearsay allegations identifying respondent as the individual who committed the charged crime, and that this error could not be remedied by allowing for petitioner to refile. Although this error could not have been remedied by amendment of the petition (see Family Ct Act § 311.5 [2] [b]), it could have been remedied by refiling. Specifically, upon refiling there could be clarification from the deputy as to the specifics of the investigation including, as is relevant here, how the video of the incident was acquired and what that video depicted, based upon the deputy’s personal knowledge after review of the video. This is not a case where the presenting agency will necessarily be unable to establish respondent’s identity … and, therefore, the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice to allow for refiling … . Matter of Savannah F., 2024 NY Slip Op 05860, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: There was no nonhearsay proof the respondent was the assailant in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. But the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because the presenting agency may be able to provide sufficient proof of the identity of the assailant upon refiling.