, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not establish standing to foreclose. Although the plaintiff proved it had possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought, it did not demonstrate the note was properly endorsed:

Although the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had possession of the original “wet ink” note prior to commencing the instant action …, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the note was properly endorsed. “Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a[n] . . . action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note” … . Here, the instant note bore no endorsements and had no allonges attached. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v PJK Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: If standing to foreclose is contested, a plaintiff must show (1) it was in possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought and (2) the note was properly endorsed in blank or specifically to the plaintiff.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S BRINGING MULTIPLE MERITLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEYS OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS WARRANTED SANCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s bringing several meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys over the course of ten years warranted sanctions:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant an award of sanctions despite noting that plaintiff’s “conduct was entirely frivolous,” “abusive,” and “fabricated.” The record firmly established that plaintiff engaged in a persistent pattern of extended and largely meritless litigation against defendant … , rendering his conduct frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) and thereby warranting sanctions. Plaintiff’s numerous lawsuits initiated against both defendant and her attorneys—six separate suits between 2010 and 2020, all dismissed at the pleading stage—strongly suggests that those lawsuits, along with the present action, were brought primarily to harass defendant … . Our prior decision holding that sanctions for frivolous conduct were not warranted does not affect our decision to grant the motion for sanctions here, as the result in our prior decision (Ray v Ray, 180 AD3d 472, 474 [1st Dept 2020]) was not based on these particular facts. Ray v Ray, 2024 NY Slip Op 05777, First Dept 11-19-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s multiple meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys warranted sanctions for “frivolous conduct.”

 

, , ,

MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF HER MENTAL HEALTH IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS ACTION; THE PRIOR MENTAL-HEALTH-BASED RULING WAS BASED ON THREE-TO-EIGHT-YEAR-OLD EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should not have been prevented from presenting evidence of her mental health in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding under the collateral estoppel doctrine. Although mother had previously been adjudicated unable to provide proper and adequate care of the children in 2018, there was no evidence of mother’s current mental health:

Neither the relied-upon 2018 order of disposition nor its supporting decision … contains a finding of fact or conclusion of law that the mother’s mental illness or intellectual disability permanently impaired the mother’s ability to provide adequate care for a child … . Instead, the prior judicial determination that the mother was “presently and for the foreseeable future” unable to provide adequate care was premised upon evaluations of the mother conducted in 2012 and 2017. Further, that determination was issued a year prior to the birth of the subject child in the present proceeding and, although the subject child was ordered into petitioner’s care almost immediately following her birth, the instant petition was nonetheless not filed for yet another two years. Thus, the 2018 judicial determination, premised on three- to eight-year-old evidence, is insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence, as a matter of law, that the mother was, at the time of this proceeding, “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for [the subject] child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c] …). Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05690, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here there was a prior ruling based on three-to-eight-year-old evidence that mother’s mental health prevented her from adequately caring for her children. The collateral estoppel doctrine should not have been applied to prevent her from presenting evidence of her current mental health.

 

,

THE COVID-19 TOLLS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID-19 tolls suspended the running of the statute of limitations in this personal injury case, rendering the action timely commenced:

Pursuant to CPLR 214 (5), a three-year statute of limitations applies to an action to recover damages for personal injury. Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on June 27, 2019, the date of the accident … , and plaintiff did not commence this action until June 29, 2022. However … plaintiff established that the statute of limitations was tolled. On March 20, 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8, which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules” … . Then-Governor Cuomo issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 … . “A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” … . Paul v Lyons, 2024 NY Slip Op 05661, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of how the COVID-19 tolls affect the running of a statute of limitations.

 

, ,

HERE THE CUSTODY CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW JUDGE; THE PREVIOUS JUDGE’S ORDERS CONSTITUTED THE LAW OF THE CASE WHICH CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY SUBSEQUENT ORDERS BY THE NEW JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge to whom the case was transferred should not have issued orders which conflicted with those issued by the previous judge, which constituted the law of the case:

The March 21, 2023 order, which directed a hearing on the father’s motion to vacate the 2017 custody order, constituted the law of the case and was thus binding on all judges of coordinate jurisdiction … . Thus, the order denying the motion to vacate the custody order, without holding a hearing, constitutes a violation of the law of the case doctrine, and the order should be reversed on that basis alone … . …

… [W]e further find that the [previous judge’s] decision to so-order the subpoena … likewise constituted law of the case. Family Court therefore erred when it denied the motion to compel solely on the basis that the judicial subpoena was overbroad. Matter of Jahir I. v Sharon E.W., 2024 NY Slip Op 05635, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: When a case is transferred to a new judge, the orders issued by the previous judge are the law of the case and must be adhered to by the new judge.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE HEARING ON WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AN INCAPACITATED PERSON IN HER ABSENCE WITHOUT FIRST FINDING SHE COULD NOT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR APPELLANT BECAUSE SHE WAS CONTESTING THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the judgment that appellant is an incapacitated person and remanding for a hearing, determined Supreme Court should not have held the Mental Hygiene Law section 81.11 hearing in appellant’s absence without first making the finding she was unable to meaningfully participate in it. In addition, Supreme Court should have appointed counsel for the appellant because she was contesting the guardianship petition:

Under the unique facts of this case [not described in the decision], we are exercising our inherent power to vacate the order and judgment in the interest of substantial justice … . Vacatur is warranted in the interest of justice because the court held a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 in respondent’s absence and without having made a finding regarding her inability to meaningfully participate in the hearing … . In addition, the court failed to appoint counsel to represent respondent even though she was contesting the guardianship petition … . Matter of Jenkins v Gina B., 2024 NY Slip Op 05637, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: A hearing under the Mental Hygiene Law to determine whether a person is incapacitated should not be held in the person’s absence without a finding he or she could not meaningfully participate in the hearing.

Practice Point: Where a person is contesting a guardianship petition under the Mental Hygiene Law, he or she is entitled to appointed counsel.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE DEMONSTRATING IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN; THEREFORE ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this case alleging sexual abuse by a teacher in 2013 – 2014. A question of fact had been raised about whether the school district knew or should have known of the teacher’s alleged propensity to abuse children:

“Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee” … . “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … .

“A school ‘has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision'” … . “‘The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information'” … . “‘The adequacy of a school’s supervision of its students is generally a question left to the trier of fact to resolve, as is the question of whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury'” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the school knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . “‘Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required'” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior, which occurred multiple times throughout the school year in a classroom on the defendants’ premises during school hours … . J.J. v Mineola Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s testimony that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior which occurred multiple times in a classroom was enough to prevent the school from making out a prima facie case that it did not have constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged propensity.

 

, , , ,

THE FAILURE TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE GIVEN AN INTERROGATORY ON THE THEORY THE SURGEON IMPROPERLY PERFORMED A PROCEDURE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR ( SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial on one of the theories of negligence, determined plaintiff’s request that the jury be given an interrogatory should have been granted:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s request that the jury be given an interrogatory asking whether [defendant] Lazzaro departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice by “the improper performance of a surgical procedure,” and therefore a new trial is required on this theory of negligence. “‘Jury interrogatories must be based on claims supported by the evidence'” … . “‘The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to submit interrogatories to the jury'” … . “However, where there is sufficient evidence to support a plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to a particular theory of negligence, it is error to deny a request by the plaintiff to submit an interrogatory to the jury regarding that theory” … .

Here, the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence at trial to support her theory that Lazzaro departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice by the manner in which he performed the surgery … . Lawrence v New York Methodist Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05571, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice case, there was sufficient proof a defendant improperly performed a surgical procedure to warrant granting plaintiff’s request to give the jury an interrogatory on the issue. The denial of the request was deemed reversible error.

 

,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order to show cause was not properly served on the incarcerated defendant, requiring vacation of the default judgment:

“The method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with” … . “The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders the resulting order void” … .

The order granting plaintiff summary judgment on his claims without opposition submitted by defendant and the related Special Referee order awarding damages are vacated. Defendant affirmed that he did not know of, or have access to, the summary judgment motion hand-delivered and served by plaintiff’s process server on a receptionist at the prison where defendant is incarcerated until after the order granting summary judgment was entered. Plaintiff’s service on the prison employee who assured that the motion would be given to plaintiff did not satisfy the court’s order to show cause approving alternative means of service that were applicable to the service of legal papers on the incarcerated defendant, and which required plaintiff to obtain at least some evidence from the prison that the served documents had, in fact, been delivered to the prisoner. The presumption of effective service arising from a valid affidavit of a process server does not apply here. The court approved an alternative means of service on the defendant incarcerated in a foreign prison, and plaintiff failed to comply. Therefore, defendant’s unrebutted claim that he did not receive the motion is not conclusory and requires vacatur of the default. Bacon v Nygard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05478, First Dept 11-7-24

Practice Point: Here service of an order to show cause upon the incarcerated defendant was not supported by any evidence the order to show cause was actually delivered to the defendant after it was given to a prison employee, Therefore the default judgment was vacated.

 

, ,

ACCORDING TO THE MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF PROVIDED HER TREATING PHYSICIAN WITH A DESCRIPTION OF HER SLIP AND FALL WHICH DIFFERED FROM HER DESCRIPTION IN HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON THE PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena served on plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Monfett, in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The medical records revealed plaintiff told the treating physician she tripped and fell breaking up a fight in a subway station. Plaintiff testified she fell because of a broken sidewalk in front of defendant’s building. The court noted that the statement in the medical record may be inadmissible hearsay without the physician’s testimony linking the statement to the plaintiff:

Dr. Monfett’s deposition is material and necessary to the defense because plaintiff’s account of her accident to the doctor conflicts with her deposition testimony, and this discrepancy bears directly on defendants’ potential liability, as well as plaintiff’s credibility … . Furthermore, the deposition is necessary because plaintiff’s statements in the medical record likely would be inadmissible as hearsay without the doctor’s testimony attributing them to her … . Defendants were not required to demonstrate “special circumstances” warranting Dr. Monfett’s deposition because they seek to depose him “solely with regard to plaintiff’s account of the accident, not for any expert medical opinion regarding plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment” … . Ogando v 40 X Owner LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05491, First Dept 11-7-24

Practice Point: Here defendants subpoenaed plaintiff’s treating physician because the statement attributed to plaintiff in her medical records differed from her description of the trip and fall in her deposition testimony. The defendants were not seeking to depose the physician as an expert concerning plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment, but rather were focused on plaintiff’s apparently conflicting account of the accident, which would be inadmissible hearsay without the physician’s testimony.