You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant carpet and flooring subcontractor’s (S&’s) request to inspect the area of the building where plaintiff stepped into a vent hole from which a cover had been dislodged should not have been denied. Although the vent cover had been replaced, it could not be said for certain that an inspection would be fruitless:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has directed that the phrase “material and necessary” in this statute should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . Under this standard, S&F is entitled to inspect the site of the incident giving rise to plaintiff’s allegedly serious injuries.

While the replacement of the … cover might reduce the likelihood that a site inspection will produce evidence useful to S&S’s defense, it does not make it certain that an inspection will be useless. … It is for S&F, not its adversary, to determine whether the inspection of the site of the accident is sufficiently likely to produce relevant information to be worth S&F’s time and effort. … . …

… [A] court’s power to limit otherwise proper use of a disclosure device should be exercised only for the purpose of avoiding “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.”

We fail to see how an inspection of the site of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit would impose on plaintiff, or on anyone else, any of the burdens enumerated by CPLR 3103(a) to an “unreasonable” extent. Balsamello v Structure Tone, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02251, First Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: An inspection by defendant of the area where plaintiff was injured should be allowed absent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.

 

IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A MAILING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 308(2) WAS DONE, THE OMISSION CANNOT BE CURED BY AMENDMENT; THE AMENDED AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the amended affidavit of the process server to add the mailing requirement should not have been accepted by the court. Failing to aver the complaint was mailed in the original affidavit cannot be cured by amendment:

CPLR 308(2) provides that personal service upon a natural person may be acquired “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business” within 20 days. CPLR 308(2) requires strict compliance and the plaintiff has “the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that service was properly effected” … .* * *

… [C]ertain defects in an affidavit of service, which are related to “a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, . . . may not be corrected by an amendment” … . These defects include an erroneous address … and an erroneous mailing date … . The omission from an affidavit of service of a statement that a mailing in compliance with CPLR 308(2) was effectuated also is not amenable to correction pursuant to CPLR 305(c) … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s amended affidavit of service should not have been considered. John Doe v Mesivtha, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02172 Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: A process server’s affidavit which does not include a statement that a mailing in compliance with CPLR 308(2) was done, the omission cannot be cured by amendment of the affidavit of service.

 

, , ,

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDUCATION LAW AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; PLAINTIFF-STUDENT, WHO HAD BEEN BULLIED AND WAS PUSHED TO THE FLOOR BY ANOTHER STUDENT, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, determined (1) charter schools are not subject to the notice of claim requirements of the Education Law and the General Municipal Law, and (2) plaintiff student, who allegedly had been bullied and was pushed to the floor by another student when the hallway was unsupervised, raised questions of fact supporting the negligent supervision cause of action:

Since charter schools are independent from school districts with respect to civil liability, financial obligations, and liability insurance coverage, it stands to reason that the extraordinary safeguards of prelitigation notification of claims applicable to school districts, municipalities and other wholly public entities would not apply to charter schools. * * *

The evidence presented triable issues of fact as to whether there were monitors present in the hallway at the time of the incident as required by the School’s policies and procedures and whether the presence of such monitors could have prevented the alleged pushing incident … . A. P. v John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 02205, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Charter schools are not subject to the notice-of-claim requirement in the Education Law and General Municipal Law; i.e., a plaintiff suing a charter school for negligence need not file or serve a notice of claim as a condition precedent.

 

, ,

RE: IN VITRO FERTILIZATION: RETRIEVING AND FERTILIZING THE EGGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE MEDICAL-MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; STORING AND MAINTAINING THE FROZEN EGGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS ARE UNTIMELY; THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS ARE TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging defendants did not properly freeze, store and maintain embryos for future implantation sounded in negligence, not medical malpractice, and were therefore timely:

The underlying parts of the IVF [in vitro fertilization] process implicate both medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. Retrieving the eggs from the ovaries, fertilizing the egg with a donated sperm, grading the quality of the embryos, and preparing them for cryopreservation are clear acts of medical science or art requiring a specialized skillset appropriately characterized as medical in nature. However, all of these acts concluded on August 11, 2008, when the embryos were cryopreserved, rendering the causes of action based on such treatment untimely (see CPLR 214-a). Further, because those processes firmly ended on that date, the continuous treatment doctrine does not toll the statute of limitations … . As plaintiffs’ causes of action for medical malpractice based upon these allegations are untimely, we need not address their merits.

On the other hand, once cryopreservation has commenced, the mere maintenance of the storage tanks containing the frozen embryos does not comprise acts of “medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons” … . Where an act is more “‘administrative’ than medical in nature,” conduct is “measured by ordinary negligence standards” … . While the cryopreservation storage tanks … were checked at least twice weekly for leaks and the levels of liquid nitrogen, such acts are more administrative than medical in nature. Thus, once the embryos entered cryopreservation, [defendants] merely owed a duty to plaintiffs to maintain the successful operability of the storage tanks.

The alleged failure in “fulfilling [this] different duty” “sounds in negligence,” rather than medical malpractice … . Bledsoe v Center for Human Reproduction, 2024 NY Slip Op 02088, First Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: The opinion in this “in vitro fertilization” case clearly demonstrates the distinction between medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. The retrieving, fertilizing and grading of the embryos involve specialized medical skills and implicate the medical-malpractice criteria. The storage and maintenance of the frozen embryos, on the other hand, implicate ordinary negligence criteria. Here the medical malpractice causes of action were untimely. But the ordinary negligence causes of action were timely.

 

, ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH A TORT ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action and the fraudulent conveyance action should not have been consolidated:

In 2016, plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against defendant eCommission Solutions, LLC (eCommission). In 2022, plaintiff commenced a fraudulent conveyance action against eCommission and its president, Paul Hoffman, and his wife, alleging that Hoffman transferred millions from eCommission to himself with the intent to defraud creditors like plaintiff.

… When one action sounds in contract and the other in tort, it is inappropriate to grant consolidation … . Indeed, the breach of contract and fraudulent conveyance actions present different questions of law and fact … . Moreover, the fraudulent conveyance action will be moot if plaintiffs fail to win the breach of contract action … . Finally, the two actions are at different stages, so that consolidation would lead to delay in trying the breach of contract action … .

Discovery in the fraudulent conveyance action should be stayed until the breach of contract action is resolved … . 3B Assoc. LLC v Ecommission Solutions, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02086, First Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: A breach of contract action should not be consolidated with a tort action (here an action for fraudulent conveyance).

 

,

A CORPORATION WHICH ACQUIRES THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF, BUT DOES NOT MERGE WITH, A PREDECESSOR CORPORATION, “INHERITS” THE CONTACTS THE PREDECESSOR CORPORATION HAD WITH NEW YORK STATE FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined that a corporation which acquires all the liabilities and assets of another corporation, but does not merge with the predecessor corporation, acquires the predecessor’s contacts with New York for purposes of New York’s personal jurisdiction over the successor corporation:

[The relevant] factors tip in favor of allowing successor jurisdiction where a successor purchases all assets and liabilities. … Sophisticated corporate entities such as SGBL [defendant] will undoubtedly engage in robust due diligence before agreeing to acquire all assets and liabilities of another entity. In doing so, they should understand where jurisdiction over such liabilities may lie and the potential cost if ultimately found liable, and will presumably negotiate a purchase price that is discounted by that prospect … .Lelchook v Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL, 2024 NY Slip Op 02081, CtApp 4-18-24

Practice Point: A corporation which acquires the assets and liabilities of a predecessor corporation but does not merge with the predecessor corporation “inherits” the contacts the predecessor corporation had with New York for purposes of New York’s personal jurisdiction over the successor corporation.

 

,

THE SECOND DEPARTMENT JOINED THE FIRST AND THIRD DEPARTMENTS IN HOLDING THAT THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO A NEW YORK RESIDENT WHO WAS ABUSED OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, joining the First and Third Departments, determined an action brought under the Child Victims Act by a person who was a resident of New York at the time the cause of action accrued can take advantage of the extended statute of limitations (CPLR 214-g) even where the wrongful conduct occurred out-of-state:

The plaintiff alleges that, when he was a resident of New York, he was the victim of childhood sexual abuse committed against him by Philip Foglietta, a football coach, while attending summer football camp in Vermont in 1972 and in Massachusetts in 1973 and 1975. * * *

… [W]e agree with the Appellate Division, First and Third Departments, that a plaintiff’s residence in New York at the time his or her claims or causes of action accrued is sufficient to bring those claims or causes of action within the purview of CPLR 214-g, even where, as here, the wrongful conduct underlying the New York resident’s causes of action occurred out-of-state … . * * *

The appellants’ focus on the location of the alleged wrongdoing is misplaced in this context, because the subject of CPLR 214-g is not the wrongful conduct itself, but rather the statute of limitations or notice of claim requirements that barred some New Yorkers from recovering damages for the underlying wrongdoing. CPLR 214-g did not criminalize or penalize behavior that was previously lawful, nor did it create a new private right of action. Rather, the statute revived prior claims or causes of action that already existed but were barred either because of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations or the plaintiff’s failure to file a timely notice of claim (see id. § 214-g). Smith v Pro Camps, Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 02074, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: The Child Victims Act extends the statute of limitations for a plaintiff who was a New York resident at the time the cause of action accrued, even if the abuse took place in another state.

 

, , , ,

A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY WHICH VIOLATES NEW YORK LAW IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that the forum selection clause in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable. The opinion is comprehensive and discusses several substantive civil procedure, contract law, corporation law, insurance law, workers’ compensation law and public policy issues which cannot fairly be summarized here:

This action is just one of many such actions commenced across the country alleging that the defendant Applied Underwriters, Inc. (hereinafter Applied Underwriters), and affiliated entities, all subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., deceptively circumvented state laws and regulations in the marketing and sale of an unlawful workers’ compensation insurance program. Here, the defendants seek to enforce a forum selection clause, in favor of Nebraska, contained in an insurance policy that New York State regulators have found violates New York law. While parties are generally free to select a forum in which to resolve their contractual disputes, here, where it is alleged by the plaintiff, and found by New York State regulators, that New York law has been violated, a foreign corporation may not profit from such violation to the detriment of New York employers and workers. The forum selection clause contained in an illegal insurance policy is not enforceable. As a matter of public policy, New York companies shall not be compelled to litigate in Nebraska to vindicate their rights. Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v Applied Underwriters, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02032, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A forum selection clause (designating Nebraska as the forum) in an insurance policy which violates New York law is not enforceable.

 

PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff 120 Lexington Ave Corp, as the successor in interest to 122-24 Lexington Ave Corp, was precluded from bringing the action by the doctrine of res judicata. A nearly identical action by 122-24 Lexington Ave Corp had been dismissed based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and orders, which is deemed a dismissal on the merits:

Plaintiff concedes that it is the successor in interest to 122-24 Lexington Avenue Corp., an entity whose nearly identical case against Wesco was dismissed in May 2021 for failure to comply with discovery demands and court orders after the court had issued a conditional preclusion order. Because plaintiff is the successor to 122-24 Lexington, it is in privity with that entity and is bound by prior adjudications against it … . Furthermore, a dismissal based on a failure to provide discovery in the face of a preclusion order is considered an award on the merits, and thus is given res judicata effect … . 120 Lexington Ave. Corp. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02004, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: An action which was dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with discovery demands and orders bars a subsequent action pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED STAIRWAY OPENING AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PRE-DEPOSITION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and the pre-deposition summary judgment motion was not premature. While transporting large wooden panels past a stairway, plaintiff fell through an unguarded stairway opening:

The court should have granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because he was not provided with adequate protection to prevent his fall into the unguarded stairway opening … . …

… Labor Law § 240(1) is not dependent on a finding that the owner or general contractor had notice of the violation … …. [D]efendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff removed the plywood barrier is speculative … .

The fact that no depositions have been taken does not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, as defendants failed to show that discovery might lead to facts that would support their opposition to the motion … . Defendants also failed to show that facts essential to their opposition were within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge … .  Blacio v Related Constr. LLC,2024 NY Slip Op 02008, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff’s pre-deposition summary judgment motion will not be dismissed as premature unless defendant demonstrates discovery might lead to relevant facts or relevant facts are within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge.

 

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