You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REVERSED; A JUDGE’S POWER TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT, SUA SPONTE, IS LIMITED AND SHOULD BE USED SPARINGLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to comply with a status conference order in this foreclosure action was not an adequate ground for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint:

“‘[A] court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive of the status conference order that it file an application for an order of reference by April 1, 2015, was not a sufficient ground upon which to dismiss the complaint … .

… [D]ismissal of the action also was not warranted based on the plaintiff’s alleged neglect to prosecute. “A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met” … . HSBC Bank USA, NA v Sung Eun Oh, 2024 NY Slip Op 01700, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A judge’s power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte is limited and should be used sparingly. To dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, all the statutory criterial must be met. Here dismissal was not warranted.

 

, , , ,

A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined: (1) an advisory pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is not appealable, and (2) the motion to limit the evidence of the valuation of the LLC to $2,450,000, although couched as a motion in limine, was actually an untimely summary judgment motion:

“[A]n order, made in advance of trial, which merely determines the admissibility of [*2]evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s motion which sought, in effect, to set the minimum value of the LLC at $2,450,000 and preclude any evidence of a lower value, while styled as a motion in limine, was the functional equivalent of an untimely motion for partial summary judgment determining that the value of the LLC was at least $2,450,000 … . “[A] motion in limine is an inappropriate substitute for a motion for summary judgment” … , and “in the absence of any showing of good cause for the late filing of such a motion,” should not have been considered … . Desantis v Desantis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01699, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling.

Practice Point: The motion in limine seeking to set a limit on the value of an LLC in this divorce proceeding was actually an untimely motion for summary judgment which should not have been considered.

 

, , , , ,

SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the demand for disclosure of SM’s medical records was properly denied because SM had not waived the physician-patient privilege, but the request for an in camera review of the records for nonmedical information should have been granted. SM has been treated by defendant New York City Health + Hospital/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH) shortly before SM stabbed infant plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged NYCHH should have reported SM and detained her or taken some other measures to protect infant plaintiff:

Infant plaintiff and her father allege that NYCHH’s employees negligently treated SM when she presented to the hospital on April 26 and April 27, 2016, shortly before she stabbed the infant plaintiff and brother, resulting in the brother’s death. They allege that SM had a history of mental illness for which she had been treated by NYCHH on “scores of previous occasions,” and that NYCHH failed to detain SM, call a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, or “take any other action to protect” the infant plaintiff. SM, who is currently incarcerated, has not waived the physician-patient privilege and is believed to be unable or unwilling to do so.

Supreme Court properly determined that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) does not apply to allow disclosure of SM’s hospital records in the interests of justice, absent SM’s consent or express or implied waiver of the physician-patient privilege provided by CPLR 4504, 4507 … . … Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ alternative request for in camera review to determine whether the records include information of a nonmedical nature, such as observations of SM’s conduct, language, and appearance and factual matters, which is subject to disclosure … . S.M. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01689, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Although medical records are protected from disclosure by the patient-physician privilege, relevant nonmedical, factual information in the records may be disclosed pursuant to an in camera review.

 

, , ,

A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the judge improperly refused to consider evidence submitted by defendants in opposition to claimant’s summary judgment motion citing the law of the case doctrine. The judge’s “law of the case” ruling, however, was based on her prior ruling on a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case with respect to a subsequent summary judgment motion:

It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … , and that a court’s order denying a motion to dismiss is “addressed to the sufficiency of the pleadings” and does not “establish the law of the case for the purpose of” motions for summary judgment … . We thus agree with defendants that the court erred in refusing to consider defendants’ proof in opposition to the motion … . Riley v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01647, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: A ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case for a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a prior ruling in a prior action finding that withheld documents were protected from disclosure did not trigger the collateral estoppel doctrine in the instant action because the prior ruling did not indicate the specific privilege invoked for each document:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in summarily denying the motion on the basis that it had previously ruled that the withheld documents were protected from disclosure in a prior action involving the parties. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when “the identical issue necessarily [was] decided in the prior action and [is] decisive of the present action, and . . . the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue [had] a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Preclusion of an issue occurs only if that issue was ” ‘actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided’ ” in the prior action … . While in the prior action the court denied a motion to compel the identical documents contained in the privilege log, the court did not specifically address whether the withheld documents were protected and which protection, such as attorney-client privilege, applied to each document. Thus, there is no evidence that the identical issue, decisive in this action, was necessarily decided in the prior action … . Wiltberger v Allen, 2024 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: Collateral estoppel applies only when the issues are identical. Here, even though the documents at issue were found to be privileged in the prior action, the precise privilege applied to each document was not described in the prior order. Therefore it is not clear the issues are identical in the instant proceeding, so the application of collateral estoppel to preclude disclosure is not available.

 

, , , , ,

RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ARREST AND PROSECUTION AND PRISON MEDICAL RECORDS ALLEGEDLY RELATING TO AN ATTACK BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD ACTUAL TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ASSOCIATED CLAIMS; LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent in one case (Jaime) and concurrences in the other (Orozco), determined that the petitions for leave to file a late notice of claim, brought by the same attorney for the two petitioners, should not have been granted. Orozco alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution and Jaime alleged an attack by corrections officers. In neither case was the petition supported by an affidavit from the petitioner. The records associated with Orozco’s arrest and prosecution did not prove the respondent (NYC) had timely actual knowledge of the claim. Because Jaime did not file a grievance about the alleged attack by correction officers and did not provide an affidavit in support of the petition for leave to file late notice, there was no proof the City had actual timely knowledge of the claim:

Insofar as Orozco argued that the City would not be substantially prejudiced by the late filing because it acquired timely actual knowledge, Orozco’s failure to establish actual knowledge is fatal. Orozco’s further argument—that the City would not be substantially prejudiced because it will have to expend resources to defend against his 42 USC § 1983 claims—misapprehends the purpose served by the notice of claim requirement. … [T]he purpose is to afford the municipality the opportunity to investigate the claims and preserve evidence … , not simply to shield municipalities from litigation costs. Moreover, this argument understates the advantage of facing only a section 1983 claim that can be defended on qualified immunity grounds … , as opposed to facing that claim plus additional state law claims. * * *

The City conceded at oral argument that an incarcerated person might not file a grievance concerning a violent attack by a correction officer for fear of reprisal, a fear that may constitute a reasonable excuse for late service of a notice of claim. It would, however, be entirely speculative for us to consider that possibility here given the absence of any relevant evidence. Were Jaime in fact operating under such a fear, he could have submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact. That affidavit would have constituted evidence supporting an arguably reasonable excuse, which might provide at least some support for a court’s discretionary determination to allow late service.

Neither the allegation that Jaime sustained injuries in the attacks for which he sought medical attention in the infirmary, nor the allegation that the DOC created or maintained records relating to those injuries, establishes that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Jaime v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01581, CtApp 3-21-24

Practice Point: In these two cases the evidence of an arrest and prosecution in one case and an attack by correction officers in the other was insufficient to demonstrate the respondent City had actual timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claims against the City. The petitioners should not have been granted leave to file late notices of claim.

 

, ,

​THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) RELIED SOLELY ON PRIOR NEGLECT FINDINGS FROM 2007 AND 2009 TO PROVE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate mother had derivatively neglected the child. ACS had brought a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. The Second Department noted that motions for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 can be appropriate in a Family Court proceeding:

While proof of the abuse or neglect of one child is admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of the parent (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b]), “there is no per se rule that a finding of neglect of one sibling requires a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the other siblings. The focus of the inquiry . . . is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood” … . In determining whether a child born after the underlying acts of abuse or neglect should be adjudicated derivatively neglected, the “determinative factor is whether, taking into account the nature of the conduct and any other pertinent considerations, the conduct which formed the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect as to one child is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists” … .

Here, ACS failed to establish, prima facie, that the mother derivatively neglected the children based upon her alleged failure to address certain mental health issues underlying the 2007 and 2009 findings of neglect … . In support of its motion, ACS relied solely on the prior neglect findings and failed to include an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the events alleged in the neglect petitions or any other evidentiary material (see CPLR 3212[b]). The prior neglect findings were not so proximate in time to establish, as a matter of law, that the conditions that formed the basis therefor continued to exist … . Matter of Kiarah V.R. (Virginia V.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01552, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Here reliance on 2007 and 2009 neglect findings to demonstrate derivative neglect was deemed insufficient.

Practice Point: The court noted that summary judgment motions pursuant to CPLR 3212 can be brought in Family Court.

 

,

CPLR ARTICLE 63-A IS CONSTITUTIONAL; THE STATUTE ALLOWS ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK ORDER PROHIBITING A RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM BASED UPON EVIDENCE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined the statute which allows the issuance of an extreme risk order prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm is constitutional. The statute is CPLR article 63-A:

CPLR 6342(1) provides, in pertinent part, that upon an application for an extreme risk protection order: “the court may issue a temporary extreme risk protection order, ex parte or otherwise, to prohibit the respondent from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in paragraph one or two of subdivision (a) of section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law. Such application for a temporary order shall be determined in writing on the same day the application is filed.”

In determining whether there are grounds for a temporary extreme risk protection order, the court “shall consider any relevant factors,” including a nonexhaustive list of conduct by the respondent: “(a) a threat or act of violence or use of physical force directed toward self, the petitioner, or another person; “(b) a violation or alleged violation of an order of protection; “(c) any pending charge or conviction for an offense involving the use of a weapon; “(d) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm, rifle or shotgun; “(e) any history of a violation of an extreme risk protection order; “(f) evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; or “(g) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or other deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any ammunition therefor. Matter of R.M. v C.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01545, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Overruling lower court precedent to the contrary, the Second Department held CPLR article 62-A, which allows issuance of an order prohibiting a respondent from possessing a firearm based upon an extreme risk of serious harm to the respondent or others is constitutional.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have determined New York courts no longer had jurisdiction over this modification of custody case without holding a hearing:

In November 2018, the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application to relocate with the child from New York to Connecticut. In an order dated May 31, 2022, the court awarded sole custody of the child to the mother and suspended the father’s parental access upon the father’s default in appearing at a scheduled court appearance. The father subsequently filed a petition to modify the order dated May 31, 2022, so as to award him sole physical custody of the child. At a court appearance on December 5, 2022, the court stated, inter alia, that the mother had “relocated to Connecticut years ago” and that “[t]he [c]ourt no longer has jurisdiction.” …

The Supreme Court should not have summarily determined, without a hearing, that it lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the child had been residing in Connecticut. The court made previous custody determinations in relation to the child in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and, therefore, would ordinarily retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a … . In order to determine whether it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1)(a), the court should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence as to whether the child had maintained a significant connection with New York and whether substantial evidence was available in New York concerning the child’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … . Matter of Holley v Mills, 2024 NY Slip Op 01542, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although the court in 2018 granted mother’s application to relocate to Connecticut with the child, it may have continuing jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have decided it did not have jurisdiction over father’s petition to modify the custody order without holding a hearing about the child’s connections to New York.

Similar jurisdiction issue in a child support modification proceeding (governed by Family Court Act 580-205(a)) in Matter of Sherman v Killian, 2024 NY Slip Op 01550, Second Dept 3-20-24

,

AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-police-department’s petition for an extreme risk protection order re: a 16-year-old student who had threatened to “shoot up the school” should not have been dismissed on the ground that the controlling statute, CPLR article 63-A, is unconstitutional:

… [T]he respondent, born in 2009, told other students on his school bus that “they shouldn’t come to school tomorrow” after they criticized the cleanliness of his hands. After the words “gun” and “shooting up the school” were mentioned, the respondent said that he was joking, but later said that he “may be serious” in carrying out his threat. School officials reported previous incidents involving violence by the respondent against other students, suicidal ideation and behavior by the respondent, and evidence that the respondent may have a mental illness.

The petitioner [police department] filed a petition for an extreme risk protection order pursuant to CPLR article 63-A. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition [on the ground that] CPLR article 63-A is unconstitutional. …

The respondent is a minor less than 16 years old, who … is not allowed to possess guns …, … [T]he Supreme Court of the United States stated that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects “law-abiding, adult citizens.” The respondent in this case is not an adult and has no general right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, he lacks standing to challenge CPLR article 63-A as a violation of the Second Amendment … .

Further, … CPLR article 63-A is constitutional and does not deprive the respondent of due process of law. Accordingly, the petition should be determined on the merits. Matter of Gallagher Town of New Windsor Police Dept. v D.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01539, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Here the police department sought an extreme risk protection order re: a 16-year-old student who threatened to shoot up the school  Supreme Court dismissed the petition for the extreme risk order, finding the controlling statute, CPLR article 63-A, unconstitutional. The First Department reversed noting its opinion dated March 20, 2024, Matter of R.M. v C.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01545, finding the statute constitutional.

 

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