You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint alleging decedent, who was suffering shortness of breath, should have been provided an advance life support (ALS) ambulance sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred:

… [T]he allegations in the complaint sound in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendant liable for its failure to provide decedent with an advance life support (ALS) ambulance after being advised that decedent was suffering from shortness of breath. The type of ambulance provided by defendant “bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment,” and thus plaintiffs’ claims must be viewed within a medical malpractice framework … . The dispatcher would need to understand the significance of “shortness of breath,” have specialized knowledge of the equipment or devices that could treat or care for the possible conditions arising from this symptom and be familiar with accepted practice in providing an ALS ambulance … . Trofimova v Seniorcare Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05997, First Dept 11-21-23

Practice Point: Where the complaint alleges the need for and failure to provide an ambulance with advance life support, it sounds in medical malpractice, not negligence.

 

,

HERE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT AND FENCE FOR $2500; THE MEMORANDUM WAS NOT AN “INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY” AND THEREFORE “SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT” WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined summary judgment in lieu of complaint was not available because the underlying document was not “an instrument for the payment of money only:”

By motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see CPLR 3213), plaintiff moved for judgment in the amount of $2,500.00, plus interest, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the parties regarding the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout, and fence between their adjoining properties.  * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as the parties’ memorandum of understanding is not “an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213 …). Where, as here, an agreement ” ‘requires something in addition to [an] explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable’ ”  Ellicottville Inn Condominium Assn. v Kempisty, 2023 NY Slip Op 05826, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: When a document requires something in addition to the payment of money (here the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout and a fence) it is not an “instrument for the payment of money only” and cannot be enforced by summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY FILING BEFORE OR AFTER THE COVID TOLL-PERIOD, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT; THE TOLL EFFECTIVELY ADDED 228 DAYS, THE LENGTH OF THE TOLL-PERIOD, TO THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID tolls of the statute of limitations rendered the plaintiffs action timely:

472 days of the 1,095-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 623 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on July 20, 2022 … . Thus, the action was timely commenced on May 18, 2022 … .

Defendants contend that the toll is inapplicable here because plaintiffs could have timely commenced the action at any point between December 4, 2018 [when the cause action accrued], and March 20, 2020 [when the toll began], or between November 3, 2020 [when the toll expired], and December 4, 2021 [three years from accual]. We reject that contention. “[A] toll operates to compensate a claimant for the shortening of the statutory period in which it must commence . . . an action, irrespective of whether the stay has actually deprived the claimant of any opportunity to do so” …  Thus, plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of tolling for the entire 228-day duration of the COVID-19 Executive Orders. Harden v Weinraub, 2023 NY Slip Op 05822, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ action accrued before the COVID toll-period which began on March 20, 2020, and there was still time left on the three-year statute of limitations when the toll was lifted on November 3, 2020. The fact that plaintiffs could have commenced the suit within three years of accrual was not relevant. The three-year statute was extended by the the length of the toll-period, 228 days.

 

IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER, AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DEMAND WILL RENDER THE PROCEEDING TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was time-barred because petitioner unreasonably delayed making the demand which triggered the four-month statute of limitations (laches):

“[W]here, as here, the proceeding is in the nature of mandamus to compel, it ‘must be commenced within four months after refusal by respondent, upon demand of petitioner, to perform its duty’ ” … . ” ‘[A] petitioner[, however,] may not delay in making a demand in order to indefinitely postpone the time within which to institute the proceeding. The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches’ ” … . “The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” … . Inasmuch as “[t]he problem . . . is one of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations[,] . . . it is immaterial whether or not the delay cause[s] any prejudice to the respondent” … . “[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been ‘treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand’ ” … . Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co. III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05867, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Where a mandamus proceeding is triggered by a demand by petitioner, an unreasonable delay in making the demand will render the proceeding time-barred.

 

,

THE PETITIONERS (THREE NYS LEGISLATORS AND AN ADVOCACY GROUP) DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ALLOWING ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the three New York State legislators (the legislator petitioners) and the advocacy group (the organizational petitioner) challenging the Department of Health regulations allowing isolation and quarantine during the COVID pandemic did not have standing to bring the petition. Legislators have standing where there has been a usurpation of power by the challenged regulations, not the case here. Advocacy groups have standing if any of its members suffered an injury not suffered by the public at large, not the case here:

… “[C]ases considering legislator standing generally fall into one of three categories: lost political battles, nullification of votes and usurpation of power” … . … “in limited circumstances, legislators do have . . . standing to sue when conduct unlawfully interferes with or usurps their duties as legislators” … . Nonetheless, to confer legislator standing, the alleged action must have caused “a direct and personal injury [that] is . . . within a legislator’s zone of interest and . . . represents a concrete and particularized harm” … .  * * *

… [T]he organization petitioner failed to “articulate any direct injury to its [members], other than the injury every citizen allegedly suffers by reason of the challenged [action] of the . . . executive branch[ ]” … . … [W]e conclude … that the organization petitioner lacks standing to bring the challenge in its own name inasmuch as it “has failed to allege a personally concrete and demonstrable injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large” … . Matter of Borrello v Hochul, 2023 NY Slip Op 05834, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Essentially, to have standing to challenge a regulation, a legislator and/or an advocacy group must be able to point to a harm separate and apart from harm suffered by other legislators (re: the legislator petitioners) or the public at large (re: the organizational petitioner). Here the legislators and the advocacy group challenging the COVID isolation and quarantine regulations were unable to demonstrate any unique harm.

 

, ,

THE MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER WHO REAR-ENDED PLAINTIFF WAS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, searched the record to award plaintiff summary judgment. The motion before the court was brought by the owner of the car which rear-ended plaintiff, Piard, against the employer of the driver of Piard’s car, Y & H. Piard alleged she did not give Y & H permission to drive the car outside of Y & H’s garage and sought summary judgment on that ground. The court improperly searched the record and awarded plaintiff summary judgment against Y & H:

… [T]he motion court erred in searching the record and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on plaintiff’s claim against Y&H. A motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense … . Here, the only issues raised with respect to defendant Piard’s motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion were defendant Piard’s liability and plaintiff’s comparative fault. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff based on co-defendant’s Y&H’s liability. Christopher v Piard, 2023 NY Slip Op 05787, First Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: There are limits on a court’s power to search the record and, sua sponte, award summary judgment. Here the motions before the court did not address whether the employer of the driver of the car which rear-ended plaintiff was liable to plaintiff. Rather the motions addressed whether the owner of the car had given permission to the employer of the driver to use her car. The motion court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to plaintiff against the employer of the driver of the car.

 

,

THE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN THIS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 BEFORE NEW YORK RECOGNIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE; THE CIVIL MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2011 JUST AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT (MEA); DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER TO ALLEGE THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN 2005 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion amend the answer in this divorce proceeding to allege the date of this same-sex marriage to have been when the religious ceremony took place in 2005, as opposed the date of the subsequent civil marriage in 2011, should have been granted. In 2005 same sex marriage was not recognized in New York. The Marriage Equality Act (MEA) recognizing same sex marriage was enacted in 2011 and the parties civil marriage took place shortly after the enactment. There has been no determination the MEA cannot apply retroactively. So defendant’s motion to amend is not palpably improper and does not prejudice the plaintiff:

At this stage in the litigation, we are tasked only with determining whether the defendant should be permitted to amend her answer to make the claim that the date of the parties’ marriage was July 21, 2005, not July 28, 2011. “In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion for leave to amend the [pleadings] pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is ‘palpably insufficient’ to state a cause of action or is patently devoid of merit” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s proposed amendment was prejudicial to her in such a way that the defendant’s motion for leave to amend her answer should be denied. Neither the length of time between the defendant’s original answer and her motion for leave to amend, nor the fact that the amendment may affect the plaintiff’s maintenance and equitable distribution obligations, are sufficient to establish prejudice to the plaintiff … . Mackoff v Bluemke-Mackoff, 2023 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: In this divorce case, the same-sex couple was married in a 2005 religious ceremony before the Marriage Equality Act (MEA). The couple was married again in a civil ceremony in 2011 shortly after the MEA was enacted. Defendant should have been allowed to amend her answer to state the marriage took place in 2005, not 2011.

 

, , , ,

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town and police–officer defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this motorcycle-accident case. The plaintiff motorcyclist (Ronnie) was speeding when the defendant officers attempted to follow him with their emergency lights on. Both officers pulled back because of the plaintiff’s speed, losing sight of plaintiff. The officers came upon plaintiff in the woods after he had crashed. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants had demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment but found that the summary judgment motion was premature and should await further discovery. The Second Department held the motion was not premature because there was no indication additional evidence would be uncovered:

… [T]he defendants’ motion was not premature. The plaintiff “failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the [defendants]” … . Here, the officers directly involved in the attempt to stop Ronnie provided sworn affidavits, which were unequivocal and consistent with the other evidence in the case. There is no basis to conclude that depositions or other discovery would render a different account of the accident. The plaintiff’s mere hope or speculation that discovery would render evidence sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion was not a sufficient basis to deny the motion … . Rojas v Town of Tuxedo, 2023 NY Slip Op 05751, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Where the evidence supports summary judgment and there is no indication further discovery will uncover additional evidence, the summary judgment motion should not be denied as “premature.”

 

,

US BANK AS THE CURRENT ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION TO DISCHARGE AND CANCEL THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined US Bank, the current assignee of the mortgage, should have been allowed to intervene in this action to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4):

“Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene as of right in an action involving the disposition of property where that person may be adversely affected by the judgment” (… see CPLR 1012[a][3]). Additionally, “a court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (… see CPLR 1013). “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … .

Here, in support of its motion, U.S. Bank submitted evidence demonstrating, among other things, that it took possession of the note in June 2018, prior to the commencement of this action, and that it was the current assignee of the mortgage. Under the circumstances, U.S. Bank’s submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that it had a real and substantial interest in the outcome of this action … . Maggi v U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 05600, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: A timely motion to intervene should be granted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE CORRECT NAME, ALTHOUGH SERVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED AND FILED NUNC PRO TUNC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should not have been dismissed. The original complaint misnamed defendant Mark Gennaro as Michael Gennaro. The amended complaint with the correct name was served after the statute of limitations had run. Pursuant to CPLR 305(c) the amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc:

“CPLR 305(c) authorizes the court, in its discretion, to ‘allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced'” … . “‘Where the motion is to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it should be granted even after the statute of limitations has run where (1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought'” … . “While CPLR 305(c) may be used to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it cannot be used after the expiration of the statute of limitations as a device to add or substitute an entirely new defendant who was not properly served” … . “The amendment may be made nunc pro tunc” … .

Here, the evidence established that the defendant, misnamed as Michael Gennaro in the original summons and complaint, was properly served with process within 120 days after the action was timely commenced and, thus, the Supreme Court obtained jurisdiction over the defendant (see CPLR 306-b …). Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the caption to be amended to correct the misnomer … . The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff was improperly attempting to name a new defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations, instead of merely correcting a misnomer, is without merit … .  Brewster v North Shore/LIJ Huntington Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05584, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was misnamed in the original complaint and the corrected complaint was not served until after the statute of limitations had run. The amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc pursuant to CPLR 305(c).

 

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