You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER WERE OVERLY BROAD AND UNDULY BURDENSOME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK IN THEIR ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discovery demands in this negligent supervision action against a school district, alleging the sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher, were overly broad and unduly burdensome. Therefore the demands should have been struck in their entirety with no attempt to prune them:

… [A] “‘ …party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure'” … . “Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the Supreme Court may issue a protective order striking a notice for discovery and inspection that is palpably improper” … . A notice for discovery and inspection is palpably improper if it is overbroad, burdensome, fails to specify with reasonable particularity many of the documents demanded, or seeks irrelevant or confidential information (see CPLR 3120[2] …). “Where the discovery demands are overbroad, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” … .

Here, many of the plaintiff’s discovery demands were palpably improper in that they were overbroad and burdensome … . The plaintiff’s discovery demands broadly sought, among other things, documents pertaining to any complaint of sexual abuse by any employee of the District from January 1, 1997, to the present and any suspected romantic or sexual relationship between any teacher and any student at the school from 1990 to the present. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the District to comply with the plaintiff’s first and second demands for discovery and granted the District’s application pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order striking those demands in their entirety instead of pruning them … . Ferrara v Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 01293, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: In this negligent supervision action against a school district alleging sexual abuse by a teacher plaintiff’s discovery demands included “documents pertaining to any complaint of sexual abuse by any employee of the District from January 1, 1997, to the present and any suspected romantic or sexual relationship between any teacher and any student at the school from 1990 to the present”. The demand was overly broad and unduly burdensome and was struck in its entirety.

 

, , ,

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 241(6, 200 and common law negligence action, determined; (1) portions of a defendant’s summary judgment motion brought more than a month after the ordered deadline where properly dismissed as untimely; (2) the aspect of the untimely summary judgment motion which had been timely raised in another defendant’s summary judgment motion was properly considered; (3) the industrial code requires shutting down the electricity when worker’s are doing electrical work, therefore plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an aerial bucket working on electrical lines when injured in an explosion:

Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, “[a]n untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants … failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), which was predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) and (4). 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) provides, among other things, that where the performance of the work may bring any person into physical or electrical contact with an electric power circuit, the employer “shall advise his [or her] employees of the locations of such lines, the hazards involved and the protective measures to be taken.” 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4) requires, in pertinent part, that employees who may come into contact with an electric power circuit be protected against electric shock “by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means” … . These regulations, which refer to the duty of employers, also impose a duty upon owners … . Wittenberg v Long Is. Power Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01329

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion brought a month after the ordered deadline may be dismissed as untimely.

Practice Point: A portion of an untimely summary judgment motion which was timely raised by another defendant may be considered.

Practice Point: The industrial code provisions requiring that electrical power be shut down to protect electrical workers supported plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Supreme Court in this action against real state brokers who, plaintiff alleged, did not provide plaintiff with proper documentation for a short sale of plaintiff’s property. The short sale was not approved by the lender and plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. The Second Department determined: (1) the judge should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because that issue was not raised by defendants in the motion; (2) the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action should not have been dismissed; (3) the Real Property Law section 441-c action alleging defendants acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” should not have been dismissed; and (4) the constructive-trust cause of action should not have been dismissed:

A court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . * * *

“[I]t is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal” … . * * *

… [T]he causes of action pursuant to Real Property Law § 441-c(1)(a) and 19 NYCRR 175.4, alleging that they acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” in dealing with the plaintiff and the property [should not have been dismissed].. … [T]here exists a private right of action for such offenses … . Perez v Mendicino, 2024 NY Slip Op 01323, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: A judge does not have the authority to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion papers;

Practice Point: Real estate brokers owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Practice Point: There exists a private right of action for a violation of Real Property Law 441-c for a real estate broker’s “untrustworthiness and incompetency.”

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action was time-barred but the related nuisance and trespass actions constituted “continuing wrongs” and therefore were not time-barred. Plaintiff alleged defendant did construction work on defendant’s property which caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. Because the construction work was done more than three years before the action was filed, the negligence action was not timely:

The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the negligence cause of action was barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[4]) by submitting evidence that the allegedly negligent construction work performed on its property occurred in or around June 2012, more than four years prior to the commencement of this action … .

… Here, the acts of continuous nuisance and trespass alleged in the amended complaint may give rise to successive causes of action pursuant to the continuous wrong doctrine … . Jefferson v New Life Tabernacle, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01295, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here construction work on defendant’s land was alleged to have caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. The negligence action accrued when the construction work was done and was time-barred. But the related nuisance and trespass actions may constitute “continuing wrongs” which were not time-barred.

 

,

AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff failed to show defendant Lopez was properly served at the traverse hearing. The default judgment against Lopez was vacated. The decisions provides a rare opportunity to look inside a traverse hearing:

During the traverse hearing, plaintiff’s process server testified that he posted the summons and complaint on the door of the subject premises located at 713 Prospect Avenue in the Bronx (the premises), after making four attempts to serve Lopez there. However, the process server also testified that while he was attempting to personally serve Lopez at the premises, which his employer had represented was her residence, someone at the premises told him Lopez did not live there. This testimony established that the nail-and-mail service of process on Lopez was insufficient because plaintiff’s process server did not first comply with the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) … . Upon obtaining information that Lopez did not reside at the premises, due diligence required the process server to investigate her whereabouts on the date of service and whether the service address was actually her dwelling place or usual place of abode before resorting to the alternative method of serving her with the summons and complaint by nail-and-mail service … . There is no evidence that the process server did so, and the affidavit of service simply states that the process server served Lopez at her “dwelling place/usual place of abode.” Casanova v Lopez, 2024 NY Slip Op 01269, Frist Dept 3-12-24

Practice Point: Here the process server was told defendant did not reside at the premises but he did not exercise due diligence (CPLR 308(4)) to find out where defendant did reside before resorting to nail-and-mail service. The default judgment against defendant was vacated.

 

, ,

THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the ruling by the Public Service Commission (PSC) was ripe for an Article 78 review and, therefore, the PSC’s motion to dismiss the petition should not have been granted. The declaratory ruling by the PSC was final and could not be altered by he PSC:

“A declaratory ruling shall be binding upon the agency unless it is altered or set aside by a court” by virtue of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 [1]). Particularly relevant here, State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 (1) does not permit an agency to “retroactively change a valid declaratory ruling,” only allowing such changes to apply “prospectively.” Thus, the explicit language of State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 did not allow the PSC to modify its initial ruling … . * * *  … [T]he … declaratory ruling issued by the PSC is quasi-judicial in nature and, at the moment it was issued, was “accorded the [same] conclusiveness that attaches to judicial judgments,” thus rendering it ripe for review … . Matter of Clean Air Coalition of W. N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commission, 2024 NY Slip Op 01233, Third Dept 3-7-24

Practice Point: A declaratory ruling by the Public Service Commission (PSC) is final and cannot be altered by the Commission. Therefore the ruling is ripe for an Article 78 review by a court.

 

THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE DEADLINE FOR FILING ACTIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2021 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the executive orders tolling statutes of limitations during COVID extended deadline for filing Child Victims Act suits for 90 days, from August 14, 2021, to November 12, 2021, rendering the instant lawsuit timely filed:

CPLR 214-g, enacted as part of the CVA, provides a revival window for “civil claims or causes of action alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions that seek to recover for injuries suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute sex crimes, which conduct was committed against a child less than 18 years of age, for which the statute of limitations had already run” … . In 2019, the CVA became effective and originally permitted actions to be commenced between August 14, 2019, and August 14, 2020 … . On August 3, 2020, the CVA was amended so as to extend the revival window for one additional year, until August 14, 2021 … . After the date of this amendment, however, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, following prior executive orders issued amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, continued to issue executive orders that ultimately tolled statutes of limitations through November 3, 2020 … .

… [T]he executive orders issued subsequent to the CVA’s amendment tolled the close of the CVA’s revival window for 90 days, from August 14, 2021, until at least November 12, 2021 … . As the instant action was commenced on November 12, 2021, it was timely commenced … . Bethea v Children’s Vil., 2024 NY Slip Op 01166,, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: The COVID executive orders tolling statutes of limitations extended the August 14, 2021, deadline for filing actions under the Child Victims Act until November 12, 2021.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE SUBJECT CHILDREN WITHIN THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT ACT 812 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense case because the appellant did not have an “intimate relationship” with the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act 812:

The “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers granted to it by the State Constitution or by statute” … . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . “Expressly excluded from the ambit of ‘intimate relationship’ are ‘casual acquaintance[s]’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … . “Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the factors a court may consider include ‘the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship'” … .

Here, the appellant and the subject children have no direct relationship, and the appellant was only connected to the subject children through her children, who were the half-siblings of three of the subject children. The appellant and the subject children do not reside together and there was no evidence that they have any direct interaction with each other. Accordingly, there is no “intimate relationship” between the appellant and the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … . Matter of Watson v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 01191, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: In order for Family Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense proceeding, the respondent must have an “intimate relationship” with the victims within the meaning of Family Court Act 812. The criteria for an “intimate relationship,” which was absent here, are explained in some detail.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF A CONTRACT BASED ON A SCRIVENER’S ERROR HAD PASSED; THE CLEAR ERROR PRODUCED AN ABSURD RESULT WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED OR CONDONED BY THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding defendant “indemnitor” liable as guarantor of a $44 million debt should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the term “borrower,” instead of “indemnitor,” was mistakenly used to indicate the identity of the guarantor of the loan. Although the statute of limitations on the alleged “scrivener’s error” action had run, to interpret the language of the guaranty in the manner argued by defendant (i.e., “borrower” was the intended term) resulted in an absurdity, which would have rendered the loan unguaranteed:

… [A] court may correct a scrivener’s error outside of a claim for reformation of a contract in “those limited instances where some absurdity has been identified or the contract would otherwise be unenforceable either in whole or in part” … . In other words, a court is not “constrained to adopt an absurd phrasing in the contract merely because the statute of limitations for reformation had passed, when the error is obvious and the drafters’ intention clear” … . * * *

… [A] guaranty must be read in the context of the loan agreement and “in a manner that accords the words their ‘fair and reasonable meaning,’ and achieves ‘a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties'” … . In other words, a “contract should not be interpreted to produce a result that is absurd, commercially unreasonable or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties” … . NCCMI, Inc. v Bersin Props., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01161, First Dept 3-5-24

Practice Point: A clear-cut scrivener’s error in a contract which produces an absurd result the parties could not have intended will not be adopted or condoned by a court, despite the running of the statute of limitations on a contract-reformation cause of action.

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SERVE A 10-MONTHS-LATE ANSWER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; IN ADDITION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the judge properly granted leave to serve a late answer raising the statute-of-limitations defense to the foreclosure action. The motion for leave to serve a late answer was made 10 months after the expiration of the time to serve an answer. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint as time-barred.

… [D]efendant did not seek leave to serve a late answer until approximately 10 months after the expiration of his time to serve an answer, but there is no indication that the failure to serve an answer was willful. Defense counsel … attributed the delay to defendant’s unsuccessful pro se negotiations with plaintiff — of which little detail was given, but which plaintiff also notably failed to deny had occurred — after which defendant promptly sought legal assistance upon receiving plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment … . Plaintiff further offered no explanation as to how it would be prejudiced by allowing defendant to serve a late answer. * * *

As the first [foreclosure] action was dismissed for neglect to prosecute, neither CPLR 205 (a) nor CPLR 205-a afforded plaintiff a six-month grace period in which to commence this action following the termination of that action upon dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal from the 2016 order …  Supreme Court … , as a result, properly dismissed this action as time-barred. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Deluca, 2024 NY Slip Op 01132, Third Dept 2-29-24

Practice Point: The criteria for allowing leave to serve a late answer is explained in some depth.

Practice Point: The unique criteria for dismissal of a foreclosure action as time-barred is explained in some depth.

 

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