IN 2017 PLAINTIFF MISSED A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE; IN 2022 PLAINTIFF MADE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, RESTORATION IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s 2022 motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted without considering whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay. In 2017, plaintiff had failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue, but no 90-day notice had been served and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. In that circumstance restoration is automatic and there is no specific time frame for a motion to restore:

Pursuant to a compliance conference order dated April 5, 2017, the plaintiff was required to file a note of issue on or before December 8, 2017. The plaintiff did not file a note of issue by that date, and the action was marked “inactive.”

In November 2022, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the active calendar. … Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to renewal “upon proper papers,” including an affirmation detailing the reasons for the delay in moving for the relief requested. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar.

Where, as here, a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .. Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [he] engaged in dilatory conduct” … . “Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame” … . Rosario v Scudieri, 2024 NY Slip Op 03769, Second Dept 7-10-24

Practice Point: If no 90-day notice has been served and there has been no dismissal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, restoration of an action to the active calendar is automatic, even five years beyond the court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue.

 

, , , ,

“UNITED METHODIST CHURCH” IS NOT A JURAL ENTITY WHICH CAN BE SUED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “United Methodist Church” is not a jural entity which can be sued. In this Child Victims Act proceeding, the complaint alleged plaintiff was abused by an employee of the defendants United Methodist Church General Conference … , United Methodist Church Northeastern Jurisdiction New York-Connecticut District, New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church Long Island East District, Long Island East District of the New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, … United Methodist Church of Woodbury New York. [and the] United Methodist Church … . The complaint alleged … United Methodist Church “is a not-for profit religious association and/or organization conducting business in the State of New York and organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at c/o GFCA, 1 Music Circle North Nashville, Tennessee 37203.”

… [A]pplying neutral principles of law, we determine … the defendants established that United Methodist Church is not a jural entity with the capacity to be sued. Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction is warranted where a named defendant is not a legal entity amenable to suit … . New York law recognizes that “[a]n action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer” of an “unincorporated association” “upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally” (General Associations Law § 13; see CPLR 1025 [“Two or more persons conducting a business as a partnership may sue or be sued in the partnership name, and actions may be brought by or against the president or treasurer of an unincorporated association on behalf of the association in accordance with the provisions of the general associations law”]). Although the term “unincorporated association” is not further defined by statute, New York courts have determined that “[i]t is only when a partnership has a President or a Treasurer that it is deemed an association within the meaning of” General Associations Law § 13 … . As such, “[a]n unincorporated association . . . has ‘no legal existence separate and apart from its individual members'” … .

* * * [W]e conclude that the defendants established that United Methodist Church … is a religious denomination with a single purpose—”to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”—and not a jural entity amenable to suit as an unincorporated association. It is undisputed that United Methodist Church does not have a principal place of business, does not have its own offices or employees, and does not and cannot hold title to property, and there is no proof in the record that United Methodist Church has incorporated or held itself out as a jural entity in any other jurisdiction. Moreover, the defendants demonstrated at the hearing that United Methodist Church, as such, does not have any involvement in the staffing or the removal of clergy or staff at the local church level. Chestnut v United Methodist Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03726, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here the “United Methodist Church” was deemed a nonjural entity which cannot be sued in New York–criteria explained in depth.

 

, , , ,

A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ANOTHER TEACHER OCCURRING REPEATEDLY AT SCHOOL WAS DEEMED AN ADMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS FORESEEABLE BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence disagreeing with the majority ruling that a teacher’s alleged statement was admissible against the school district as an admission, affirmed the denial of the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act negligent supervision case. Plaintiff, who was a student in the late 60’s, alleged repeated abuse by a teacher in a back room at the school. Another teacher was alleged to have overheard the abuse and allegedly threatened plaintiff with revealing it in an attempt to sexually abuse plaintiff himself. That statement was deemed an admission which raised a question of fact whether the abuse was foreseeable by the school district:

… [P]laintiff testified that the orchestra teacher offered her a ride home from a bus stop after an evening event at the school. Instead of taking her home, however, the orchestra teacher took her to a park where, according to plaintiff, he told her “that he knew what was going on because he could hear through the walls from the orchestra room into that back room [where Fleming’s office was located] and that [plaintiff] didn’t want it to get out — [plaintiff] wouldn’t want it to come out, so [she] should be nice to him.” When plaintiff responded that she did not know what the orchestra teacher was talking about, he attempted to kiss her. * * *

The court determined that the entirety of the statement attributed to the orchestra teacher was admissible as a vicarious party admission of defendant under CPLR 4549 and therefore properly considered when evaluating defendant’s motion for summary judgment, because the orchestra teacher was employed by defendant and “[r]ecognizing and responding to the abuse of students while on school grounds certainly falls within the scope of the duties of a teacher employed by [defendant].” * * *

We conclude that it is within the scope of a teacher’s employment relationship to identify and assist a student who they believe is being sexually abused, and that the orchestra teacher’s statement indicating awareness of the abuse of plaintiff was therefore “on a matter within the scope of [the employment] relationship” … . We further conclude that the orchestra teacher’s statement professing knowledge of the abuse occurred “during the existence of” the employment relationship, within the meaning of CPLR 4549, inasmuch as it is undisputed that he was employed by defendant at the time the statement was made. Therefore, we agree with the court that the statement is admissible pursuant to CPLR 4549. Bl Doe 5, 2024 NY Slip Op 03608, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: In a negligent supervision action against a school district, is a statement allegedly made by a teacher to a student indicating the teacher’s awareness of repeated sexual abuse of the student by another teacher, taking place at school, admissible against the school district as an admission of its awareness of the abuse? Here the court answered “yes” over a concurrence which disagreed.

 

,

THE JUDGMENTS ISSUED BY THE NATION COURT FOR A VIOLATION OF A CAYUGA NATION ORDINANCE CONSTITUTED FINES; A FOREIGN COUNTRY’S JUDGMENTS FOR FINES ARE NOT RECOGNIZED OR ENFORCEABLE IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgments granted by the Nation Court for violation of a Cayuga Nation ordinance constituted fines. Under the CPLR, a foreign -country judgment for a fine is not recognized or enforceable in New York State:

“Under CPLR article 53, a judgment issued by a foreign country is recognized and enforceable in New York State if it is ‘final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered’ ” … . Article 53, however, “does not apply to a foreign country judgment, even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to the extent the judgment is . . . a fine or penalty” … . “A party seeking recognition of a foreign country judgment has the burden of establishing that [article 53] applies to the foreign country judgment” .. .

Here, there is no dispute that each of the foreign country judgments at issue in these appeals is a fine. The foreign country judgments were granted by the Nation Court against respondents after the Nation Court found respondents in contempt of an order permanently enjoining respondents from operating Pipekeepers and in violation of a Cayuga Nation ordinance and assessed fines based on those findings. Thus, inasmuch as petitioner failed to meet its burdens of establishing that article 53 applied to the foreign country judgments … , the burdens never shifted to respondents to establish a mandatory or discretionary ground for non-recognition of the judgments under CPLR 5304 … . Matter of Cayuga Nation v Parker, 2024 NY Slip Op 03603, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Judgments issued by the Nation Court for violations of a Cayuga Nation ordinance are considered foreign-county judgments by the CPLR. Foreign-country judgments for fines, like those issued here, are not recognized or enforceable in New York State courts.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants landlord and property manager were entitled to have the liability verdict set aside in the interest of justice because the judge should not have precluded testimony by defendants’ expert. Plaintiff-tenants were injured when their apartment ceiling collapsed. The defendant expert would have testified there would have been no visible signs that the ceiling was about to collapse. The court noted that plaintiffs’ request for a Frye hearing was properly denied because the expert would have testified based upon his personal training and experience:

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The expert must possess “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “The expert’s opinion, taken as a whole, must also reflect an acceptable level of certainty in order to be admissible” … .

Here, the defendants’ CPLR 3101(d) disclosure indicated that Yarmus [the defense expert], a professional engineer with experience in construction management and building and safety code compliance, would testify, inter alia, as to the materials and manner of construction of the ceiling at issue, as well as the manner in which ceilings so constructed may detach and collapse, allegedly, without a defect that is detectable so as to give notice of a dangerous condition. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Yarmus’s proposed testimony was neither so conclusory or speculative, nor without basis in the record, as to render it inadmissible … .

… “[T]he long-recognized rule of Frye . . . is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has ‘gained general acceptance’ in its specified field … . An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis … . Ghazala v Shore Haven Apt. Del, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03681, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point; If a judge makes a mistake by precluding admissible testimony, here testimony by the defense expert, the judge has the power to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict.

 

, , ,

LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law section 193 prohibited plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer from reducing plaintiff’s pay to recoup costs associated with a traffic accident alleged to have been the result of plaintiff’s negligence:

Labor Law § 193 “prohibits an employer from making any deduction from an employee’s wages unless permitted by law or authorized by the employee for certain purposes” … . To allow an employer to recover the return of paid wages based upon an employee’s alleged lack of performance “would be permitting [that employer] to do indirectly and retroactively that which the law specifically prohibits it from doing directly” … . This principle applies equally whether the cause of action sounds in negligence or in contract, as an employee may not waive the protections of Labor Law § 193 … .

… [T]he defendants’ counterclaims are explicit attempts to recoup costs for their business allegedly arising out of the plaintiff’s negligence or poor performance. Because such causes of action are barred by the Labor Law, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims. Craig v Fastex Logistics Transp., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03678, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer reduced his pay to recoup costs associated with plaintiff’s traffic accident with a company truck. Such a pay reduction is prohibited by Labor Law section 193.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellants’ second summary judgment motion in this traffic accident case did not violate the prohibition of successive motions. The first motion dealt with whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The second motion addressed defendant’s liability. Appellants demonstrated a sufficient reason for the failure to include both issues in a single motion, i.e., the first motion was made before defendant was deposed and admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle:

… [A]ppellants’ first motion for summary judgment was on the issue of serious injury. Their second motion was on the issue of liability. The issue of whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, “is a threshold matter separate from the issue of fault” and which must, therefore, be determined separately … . “[S]erious injury is quintessentially an issue of damages, not liability” … . Under the facts presented, appellants’ failure to raise the issue of liability in their first motion for summary judgment does not run afoul of the general disfavor of successive motions since the issue of serious injury was not germane to the issue of liability … .

Appellants have also established the existence of sufficient cause … . Here, the record indicates that the first motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the deposition testimony of defendant-respondent Phanor. In his testimony Phanor admitted that he swerved into appellant’s vehicle in order to avoid another unidentified vehicle. Priester v Phanor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03554, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that successive summary judgment motions are generally prohibited was overlooked. The issues in the two motions did not overlap (one dealt with plaintiff’s damages, the other with defendant’s liability). And the first motion was brought before the deposition in which defendant admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this medical malpractice case was entitled to dismissal of all claims because he was not properly served:

Defendant Michael B. Shannon, M.D. contends that this action should have been dismissed as against him for lack of timely service under CPLR 306-b … . It is undisputed on appeal that plaintiff failed to properly serve Shannon within 120 days of commencement of this action. Plaintiff does not purport to have demonstrated good cause for the delay. We find that an extension of time to serve Shannon was not warranted in the interest of justice.

Shannon’s unrebutted affidavit reflects that service was attempted at an office where he worked only as an independent contractor and that his residence and principal place of business were in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to make any effort to investigate further or to correct this error when Shannon failed to appear or answer. She did not file her default motion until nearly two years after commencing this action, which is well over the one-year deadline to make such a motion (see CPLR 3215[c]). The motion was also filed after discovery and motion practice were well underway. Diaz v Nasir, 2024 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and did not make a timely motion to extend the time to serve, complaint dismissed.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of the defendant in this traffic accident case divested the court of jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss by the decedent’s former attorneys, who had not been substituted for the decedent, should not have been considered by the court. The Appellate Division also noted that plaintiff’s motion to substitute decedent’s daughter as a representative for the decedent required notice to all persons interested in decedent’s estate:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” .. . “The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party” … . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, the motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint was made by the former attorneys for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorneys lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

Further, any motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide notice to persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion with leave to renew upon service on persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Fazilov v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 03470, Second Deppt 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant in a traffic accident case died. The decedent’s former attorneys did not have the authority to make a motion to dismiss and the court should not have considered it.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion to have decedent’s daughter substituted for decedent required notice all persons interested in decedent’s estate.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure case did not have sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint sua sponte (another reminder that sua sponte dismissals of complaints rarely survive appeal);

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . “[A] court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by an arbitrary date set by the court” … . “To obtain appellate review of an order or portion of an order issued sua sponte, a party may move to vacate the order or portion of the order and appeal as of right to the Appellate Division if that motion to vacate is denied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar, as the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by July 26, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint … . James B. Nutter & Co. v Heirs & distributees of the estate of Rose Middleton, 2024 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point; Failure to meet a filing deadline set by the court was not an adequate reason for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.