You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; PLAINTIFF COULD BE MADE WHOLE ENTIRELY BY A MONETARY AWARD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the demand for both money damages and equitable relief in this employment discrimination case did not waive plaintiff’s right to a jury trial. The plaintiff could be made whole entirely with money damages:

CPLR 4101(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “issues of fact shall be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived,” in any action “in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only.” The “deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising out of the same transaction” may constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial … . However, the right to a jury trial must be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint and not by the prayer for relief … , and “[w]here a plaintiff alleges facts upon which monetary damages alone will afford full relief, inclusion of a demand for equitable relief in the complaint’s prayer for relief will not constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial” … . A jury trial will not be waived if the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff is “incidental to [his or her] demand for money damages” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s action is to recover damages for employment discrimination. Therefore, the character of the action is essentially legal, and even though the prayer for relief in the complaint contains demands for equitable relief, only an award of monetary damages would afford the plaintiff a full and complete remedy … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01530, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although a demand for equitable relief may waive the right to a jury trial, here there was no waiver because plaintiff could be made whole with a monetary award.

 

,

BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent Office of Court Administration (OCA) gave petitioner the impression it was still considering petitioner’s FOIL request after the 10-day period for a response from the OCA expired on May 27, 2022. The OCA produced some documents on June 27, 2022. Therefore, the four-month period for commencing an Article 78 proceeding did not start on May 27, but rather on June 27, rendering the Article 78 commenced on November 8, 2022, timely:

… OCA’s ongoing consideration of the request created an ambiguity and the impression of nonfinality regarding its May 27 constructive denial … . Twice, on June 16 and August 5, 2022, OCA issued substantive rulings on the FOIL request, stating that petitioner had 30 days to take a written appeal of the determination. OCA’s treatment of its May 27 constructive denial as a final agency determination is inconsistent with its statements notifying petitioner that it had opportunities for further administrative appeals … . Thus, petitioner was justified in pursuing the administrative appeals that OCA appeared to offer rather than commencing what would have been a timely article 78 proceeding.

OCA created further doubt about the finality of its May 27 constructive denial when it wrote in its June 23, 2022 email that its substantive response to the FOIL request rendered the appeal of the constructive denial moot and issued a ruling on petitioner’s appeal. OCA’s contention that petitioner’s May 13, 2022 appeal was denied with finality on May 27 is incompatible with its later characterization of that appeal as moot. Similarly, the July 27, 2022 production letter from OCA stated that OCA was producing records in response to petitioner’s FOIL request, which, according to OCA, had been “remanded back . . . in response” to petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner was justified in its understanding that its request had not been denied with finality on May 27, as it could not have been both conclusively denied and simultaneously “remanded back . . . in response” to petitioner’s June 23, 2022 appeal.

Because OCA created an ambiguity, it is resolved against the agency, and the petition is deemed timely … . Matter of Portfolio Media, Inc. v New York State Off. of Ct. Admin., 2024 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the respondent did not respond to petitioner’s FOIL request within 10 days. But because the respondent created ambiguity about whether it was still considering the request after the constructive-denial date, the constructive-denial date should not have been used to calculate the four-month period for commencing an Article 78 proceeding. Therefore the Article 78 was timely commenced.

 

,

JUDICIARY LAW 487 CREATES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY FOR DECEIT OR FRAUD ON THE COURT OR ANY PARTY TO A LAWSUIT; HERE THE PROOF OF DECEIT OR FRAUD WAS LACKING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined Judiciary Law section 487 creates a private right of action seeking damages for deceit by an attorney, Here plaintiff alleged her attorney in a medical malpractice action defrauded the court in the calculation of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals sided with plaintiff in finding a private right of action under Judiciary Law 487, but found plaintiff’s evidence of deceit or fraud on the defendant-attorney’s part was lacking:

We conclude … that section 487 authorizes a plenary action for attorney deceit under these circumstances. The text of the statute allows recovery of treble damages “in a civil action” where “[a]n attorney . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion . . . with intent to deceive the court or any party.” The phrase “in a civil action” is most naturally read to include a plenary action. Notably, the provision does not differentiate between an action that might undermine or undo a final judgment and one that does not, or between allegations of fraud that are intrinsic to the underlying action, as opposed to extrinsic. Interpreting the statute to permit a plenary action where the remedy would not entail undermining a final judgment (for example, when the deceit harms a prevailing party), but deny one where a final judgment could be impaired, would require us to rewrite the statute. That we cannot do. * * *

Plaintiff has not identified a material issue of fact as to whether [defendant-attorney’s] representations that the fee calculations comport with the statutory schedule amounted to false statements. Urias v Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01497, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: Judiciary Law 487 creates a private right of action against an attorney for fraud upon the court or any party to a lawsuit.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that plaintiffs were properly allowed to amend their complaint, which had been dismissed without prejudice, because counterclaims were still before the court:

… [T]he Appellate Division dismissal of the second amended complaint due to lack of standing or capacity was without prejudice …. . The order contemplated that the company could “in theory, be revived,” but simply stated that [plaintiff] had done so improperly. Therefore, there is nothing in the Appellate Division’s order or opinion that would prevent plaintiffs from pursuing their claims after curing the standing or capacity issue. …

The question on appeal, then, is whether the Appellate Division’s decision required the plaintiffs to commence a separate action instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Whatever the answer to that question might be in a case in which no action remained between the parties in Supreme Court, … here the action remained pending in Supreme Court because of the [defendants’] counterclaims. Therefore, Supreme Court retained control over the parties and continued to adjudicate claims related to the same transactions that formed the subject-matter of the complaint. For that reason, the Appellate Division order also did not render the case final for purposes of appealability, as no appeal to the Court of Appeals may be taken from an order which leaves claims pending in the action between the same parties … .

Because the original action remained pending in Supreme Court even after the complaint was dismissed, Supreme Court retained the power to grant leave to plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 2024 NY Slip Op 01496, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice and the issue was whether plaintiffs could file an amended complaint, or whether plaintiffs had to start a new lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held Supreme Court retained the power to allow an amended complaint because counterclaims were still before the court.

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL WITH ELEVEN JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL ON ALL COUNTS WITHOUT INQUIRING WHETHER A VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED ON ANY OF THE COUNTS; RETRIAL OF THIS MURDER CASE PROHIBITED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, granting petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition, determined retrial of this murder case was prohibited on double jeopardy grounds. Apparently one juror (juror number five) had done independent research on the charge of murder in the second degree and jurors had complained about racial tension in the jury room, implicating the same juror. There was an indication that jurors had agreed on verdicts for five of six charges. Petitioner asked to continue the trial with 11 jurors, which requires the judge’s consent. The judge denied the request. Defense counsel asked that the jury be polled on the counts for which verdicts had apparently been reached. The judge refused the request and declared a mistrial:

… [T]he People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. Assuming, arguendo, that juror number five was grossly unqualified to continue serving, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. Petitioner expressed his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 individuals and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals “if circumstances arise that warrant such a request” … . Although the court has discretion to deny a request to proceed with 11 jurors—as the court did here—that discretion is limited … . The record here is devoid of evidence that petitioner’s request was not tendered in good faith, that the request was ” ‘a stratagem to procure an otherwise impermissible procedural advantage’ ” … , or that deliberation with 11 jurors could not “produce a fair verdict” … . Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, “it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict” … .

Moreover, “it was an abuse of discretion to have declared a mistrial on all of the counts in the indictment without inquiring whether a decision had been reached on any of the charges” … . Although there was not “overwhelming evidence” that a partial verdict had been reached … , the jury’s note asking for guidance on next steps “[i]f we have a decision on five counts but not on one of them” presented more than a mere inference that the jury may have reached a partial verdict, and the subsequent communications with the jury did not indicate otherwise … . Under these circumstances, the court was required to make an inquiry “as to whether a verdict had been reached on any of the counts . . . before declaring a mistrial over the petitioner’s objection” … .

On this record, “[n]either physical impossibility to proceed nor manifest necessity to declare a mistrial as to the entire indictment has been demonstrated” … because the court failed “to obtain enough information” whether a mistrial was actually necessary as to all counts … . Matter of Shipmon v Moran, 2024 NY Slip Op 01424, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to deny petitioner’s request to continue the trial with 11 jurors. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to fail to inquire whether the jury had reached a verdict on any counts. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

 

, ,

TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT (PLUMBING PIPES) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS AS TRESPASS BY THE ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION OF WATER; TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT IS A CONTINUING TRESPASS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OR AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trespass cause of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. A trespass claim based upon a permanent physical encroachment (here plumbing pipes connected to a septic system) is a continuing trespass which gives rise to successive trespass causes of action until the expiration of the time period for an easement by prescription or adverse possession:

… [P]laintiff’s claim for trespass seeking monetary damages should not be analyzed for statute of limitations purposes in the same way as a claim for the artificial diversion of water onto an adjoining property … , inasmuch as plaintiff’s trespass claim is based upon a permanent physical encroachment, i.e., the underground plumbing that defendants installed on plaintiff’s property. “[The] encroaching structure is a continuing trespass [that] gives rise to successive causes of action, except where barred by acquisition of title or an easement by operation of law” … . ” ‘Thus, for purposes of the statute of limitations, suits will only be time-barred by the expiration of such time as would create an easement by prescription or change of title by operation of law,’ [namely], by adverse possession” … . Inasmuch as the complaint, which was filed on July 23, 2021, alleges that defendants’ “plumbing material” was unlawfully installed on plaintiff’s property in 2014, plaintiff’s claim for damages here is not barred by the statute of limitations (see RPAPL 501 [2]). Kramer v Kleiber, 2024 NY Slip Op 01387, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Trespass by artificial diversion of water is not subject to the same statute of limitations analysis as trespass by a permanent physical encroachment (plumbing pipes in this case). Trespass by permanent physical encroachment is a continuing trespass until the expiration of the time period required for adverse possession or an easement by prescription.

 

THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT MET; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change the venue in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted because the statutory criteria in CPLR 510(3) were not met. The statute requires detailed information about the witnesses who will testify and how those witnesses would be inconvenienced if venue is not changed:

To warrant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3), “[t]he affidavit in support of such motion must contain the names, addresses and occupations of the prospective witnesses, must disclose the facts to which the proposed witnesses will testify at the trial, must show that the proposed witnesses are, in fact, willing to testify and must show how the proposed witnesses would be inconvenienced in the event that a change of venue is not granted” … . Defendants have failed to meet any part of this standard. Defendants’ general statements that nonparty witnesses involved in the renovation project will be inconvenienced by venue in New York County is inadequate to satisfy the standard … . Corner of Walnut LLC v Tompkins Ins. Agencies, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01339, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: CPLR 510(3) describes the required contents of a motion to change venue which includes detailed information about the witnesses who will testify and how the witnesses will be inconvenienced if venue is not changed.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK RESIDENT AND A SHAREHOLDER IN DEFENDANT LONDON CORPORATION, ALLEGED DEFENDANT WRONGFULLY FAILED TO PAY DIVIDENDS; THE LONDON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss on “forum non conveniens” grounds should have been granted. Plaintiff is a New York resident and the defendant is a London corporation (Anderson). Plaintiff, a shareholder of Anderson, alleged Anderson failed to pay dividends to shareholders:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action when it finds that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum” (CPLR 327[a]). In reviewing the motion court’s exercise of discretion, this Court, however, may exercise such discretion independently … . The factors to be considered on a forum non conveniens motion include: “the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may bring suit. The court may also consider that both parties to the action are nonresidents and that the transaction out of which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction. No one factor is controlling” … . New York courts “need not entertain causes of action lacking a substantial nexus with New York” … .

… Although plaintiff is a resident of New York, Anderson, its documents, and the witnesses are all located in the United Kingdom. The dispute involves an accounting of a British private company and will likely involve the application of British law to determine what duty, if any, is owed to plaintiff. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has a stronger interest than New York in the actions, duties, and governance of its companies … . Hayes v Anderson & Sheppard Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 01344, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a New York resident and a shareholder in defendant London corporation, alleged defendant wrongfully failed to pay dividends. The London defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds should have been granted, criteria explained.

 

, ,

THE SIGHTSEEING BUS COMPANY’S COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING CONCERTED ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR BY OTHER BUS COMPANIES IN VIOLATION OF THE DONNELLY ACT (GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 340) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the counterclaims by a tour bus company, Go New York, alleging anti-competitive behavior in violation of the Donnelly Act by other bus companies, called the Gray Line respondents, should not have been dismissed:

The Donnelly Act prohibits “[e]very contract, agreement, arrangement or combination” through which “a monopoly . . . is or may be established or maintained,” whereby “competition or the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of business . . . is or may be restrained,” or whereby trade or business is or may be restrained “[f]or the purpose of establishing or maintaining any such monopoly or unlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce” (General Business Law § 340 [1]). As with a claim brought “under its essentially similar federal progenitor, section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC § 1 et seq),” a claim brought under the Donnelly Act, at a minimum, “must allege both concerted action by two or more entities and a consequent restraint of trade within an identified relevant product market” … . The Court has recognized that “the sweep of Donnelly may be broader than that of Sherman” insofar as the Donnelly Act proscribes “arrangements” in addition to contracts, combinations, and conspiracies … . …

Go New York alleges that the Gray Line respondents conspired with other counterclaim defendants (which Go New York refers to as “Big Bus/Leisure Pass”), to leverage their market share to “shut out” Go New York from the “hop-on, hop-off sightseeing tour bus market.” According to the facts asserted—which we must accept as true on this motion—representatives from various New York City attractions refused to do business with Go New York after Gray Line and Big Bus/Leisure Pass impugned Go New York’s reputation and threatened to end their business with those attractions if they did business with Go New York. Go New York also alleged that, although certain attractions referenced exclusive relationships with either Gray Line or Big Bus/Leisure Pass as a basis not to partner with Go New York, the attractions in fact partnered with both. Thus, it can be inferred that the claimed exclusive relationships were a pretext to cover for anticompetitive efforts to exclude Go New York. Although sparse, these factual assertions and all the possible inferences to be drawn therefrom are sufficient to allege concerted action between two or more entities and support a cognizable Donnelly Act counterclaim under our liberal notice pleading standards … . Taxi Tours Inc. v Go N.Y. Tours, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01333, CtApp 3-14-24

Practice Point: The allegations here were deemed sufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of the Donnelly Act, which prohibits concerted anti-competitive behavior by businesses designed to exclude a competing business from the market.

 

, ,

WHERE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A UNION SEEKS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AS OPPOSED TO MONETARY DAMAGES, THE COMPLAINT NEED NOT ALLEGE EVERY MEMBER OF THE UNION RATIFIED THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the precedent (Martin v Curran (303 NY 276) prohibiting a lawsuit against a union (an unincorporated association) unless it was demonstrated every member of the union ratified the challenged action only applies when the lawsuit seeks monetary damages, not, as here, injunctive relief:

… [E]xtending [Martin v Curran (303 NY 276 [1951])] to bar union members from seeking any form of injunctive relief against a union, would have troubling implications. Respondents do not seriously dispute that, if Martin precludes petitioners’ claim here, union members would have no recourse to the courts even when incumbent union officials are allegedly manipulating elections to maintain power. Applying Martin to bar suits seeking to compel union officials to abide by their respective union constitutions and bylaws would have “far-reaching consequences” and risk “stifl[ing] all criticism” and democracy “within the union” … .

We therefore clarify that where, as here, union members seek only injunctive relief against the union and state no claim for pecuniary damages, the pleading is not governed by Martin and, as such, a plaintiff need not allege the participation of each individual member to bring a claim in accordance with General Associations Law § 13. The petition below was therefore improperly dismissed on that ground. Matter of Agramonte v Local 461, Dist. Council 37, Am. Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Empls., 2024 NY Slip Op 01332, CtApp 3-14-24

Practice Point: The complaint in a lawsuit against a union seeks injunctive relief, as opposed to monetary damages, the complaint need not allege that every member of the union ratified the challenged conduct.

 

 

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