You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

,

FATHER’S OBJECTIONS (EXCEPTIONS) TO THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF HIS SON TO ITALY PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS THE SON WAS SUBJECTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE BY A MINOR IN MOTHER’S HOME IN ITALY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined father, pursuant to the Hague Convention, had demonstrated the child should not be returned to his mother in Italy based on his allegations he was being sexually abused by a minor who was living with mother and her boyfriend. Therefore, Supreme Court should not have rejected father’s objections (exceptions) to his son’s immediate return to Italy for further proceedings:

… [T]he father’s affidavit reflects that the child made prompt, detailed disclosures of extended sexual abuse experienced in Italy. According to that affidavit, the child also reported that abuse to the mother, who did nothing to intervene or prevent it and instead “forced” the child to continue sleeping in the same bed as the offending minor. As a result, the child has developed a fear of returning to the mother’s custody in Italy. Supreme Court was also provided with a State Police incident report, which reflects that the child made consistent allegations regarding the abuse about a week following his disclosure to the father while interviewed by a child advocate. The submissions further included confirmation of the Italian criminal proceedings against the mother and the boyfriend for not only their alleged failure to prevent the abuse but their facilitation thereof, and there is no information in the record regarding the current status of those proceedings. Accepting these serious allegations as true … , it was an abuse of discretion to summarily reject the father’s first exception. * * *

The affidavit also makes clear the child’s particularized fear of returning to the mother’s custody given that failure and her alleged facilitation of the sexual abuse that he suffered. The record also contained an email exchange regarding the child’s lack of communication with the mother following his disclosure to the father, in which the father describes the child as “a mature smart boy” who was thus being permitted to determine his own communication preferences. Also before the court was the transcript of a telephone call between the child and the mother, in which the child, then nearly 10½ years old, articulately opposed the mother’s efforts to secure his return, citing the mother’s “lies” as to why he is in New York. Although the parties debate the influence each of them has had over the child’s position, any undue influence also presents an issue of fact … . Matter of Luisa JJ. v Joseph II, 2023 NY Slip Op 04699, Third Dept 9-21-23

Practice Point: Here mother demonstrated her son should be returned to her in Italy pursuant to the procedures in the Hague Convention. However father’s objections (exceptions) to his son’s immediate return to Italy based on allegations of sexual abuse by a minor in mother’s home should not have been rejected by Supreme Court. An immediate hearing in Supreme Court was ordered.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and did not demonstrate it complied with the notice-of-default requirement in the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and three undated purported allonges, one of which was endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were each on a piece of paper completely separate from the note and the other allonges, were “so firmly affixed” to the note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … .

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In her affidavit, a representative employed by the plaintiff’s loan servicer did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by the affiant were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Yoel, 2023 NY Slip Op 04682, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action alleges the bank lacks standing to bring the action, the bank must demonstrate it was the holder of the note at the time the action was brought. In addition, the UCC requires that allonges endorsed in blank be “firmly affixed” to the note.

 

, ,

IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF PRE-ACCIDENT REPAIRS BUT NOT POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of pre-accident repairs, but not to post-accident repairs:

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to produce repair-related records for the subject stairway, and a list of all employees and contractors that performed work on the subject stairway, for the period of two years prior to the date of the subject accident. The plaintiffs demonstrated that those documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of this action, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a protective order was warranted with respect to those documents … .

However, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendant to disclose such records for the one-year period after the date of the accident. “Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . “An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue” … . Here, there is no issue as to the maintenance and control of the subject stairway … . C.B. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04650, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff in this stairway slip and fall case is entitled to discovery of pre-accident, but not post-accident, repairs.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; DEFENDANT LESSOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGATION THE CAR WAS NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED WAS “NOT A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action against the lessor of the car involved in the accident (Rallye) should not have been dismissed pursuant to the Graves Amendment. Defendant lessor did not demonstrate the allegation the car was negligently maintained was “not a fact at all:”

“Pursuant to the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner” … .

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Further, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” dismissal should not eventuate … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, an affidavit from Rallye’s employee, who averred that Rallye’s vehicle was in good working condition at the time it allegedly was rented to Orphanides [the defendant driver], did not show that the plaintiff’s allegation of negligent maintenance on the part of Rallye was not a fact at all … . Holmquist v Orphanides, 2023 NY Slip Op 04660, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: In the context of a motion to dismiss, an affidavit stating that the leased car involved in the accident was in good working order will not, pursuant to the Graves Amendment, defeat a complaint which alleges the leased car was negligently maintained  The affidavit does not establish the negligent-maintenance allegation is “not a fact at all.”

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “GOOD CAUSE” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, BUT DID DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXTENSION IN THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of process in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Although plaintiff did not demonstrate “good cause” for the failure to timely serve, the motion met the criteria for an extension in the interest of justice:

“Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . “Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service” … . “[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . Under the interest of justice standard, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b. In support of the motion, the plaintiff offered nothing more than the affidavit of service of its process server. While a process server’s affidavit of service creates a presumption of proper service, the Supreme Court had already determined that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on the validity of service of process … .

However, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was perceived by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action, and that the plaintiff promptly sought an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective. The plaintiff also established that the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff made its motion to extend the time to serve, that the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action, and that there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Lyons, 2023 NY Slip Op 04654, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If you can’t demonstrate “good cause” for an extension of time for service of process, you still may be entitled to an extension in the “interest of justice.”

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE; VIDEO OF A FEW SECONDS BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL WAS PRESERVED, BUT THE REST OF THE VIDEO WAS OVERWRITTEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s answer in this slip and fall case should not have been struck for spoliation of evidence. Defendant preserved video of the slip and fall which happened during a school dance—a few seconds before and after the fall. But the rest of the video was overwritten 21 days after the fall as part of a routine procedure. Defendant did not have notice of a potential lawsuit at the time the video was overwritten:

“‘Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126′” … . “‘A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense'” … . “In the absence of pending litigation or notice of a specific claim, a defendant should not be sanctioned for discarding items in good faith and pursuant to its normal business practices” … .

… The plaintiff did not establish that the defendant was placed on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation at the time the surveillance footage was overwritten … . The plaintiff did not notify the defendant of her claim or request that it preserve any surveillance footage until three months after the incident, by which time the surveillance footage had been automatically overwritten according to the defendant’s normal business practices.

… [D]efendant’s preservation of only a portion of the surveillance footage does not indicate a culpable state of mind … as the defendant’s representative, an assistant principal, averred in an affidavit that he saved the 51-second clip of the incident consistent with ordinary business practices. The assistant principal’s affidavit was also sufficient to provide the court with a “basis to find that the search for [the surveillance footage] had been a thorough one [and] that it had been conducted in a good faith effort to provide [the surveillance footage] to the plaintiff” … . Similarly, no evidence indicates that the defendant was negligent in failing to preserve the additional surveillance footage … . Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant’s failure to preserve all of the surveillance footage fatally compromised her ability to prove her claim … . M.B. v St. Francis Preparatory Sch., 2023 NY Slip Op 04651, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: After video of the fall and a few seconds before and after the fall was preserved by the defendant, the remainder of the video was overwritten in accordance with usual procedure. Defendant was not on notice of a potential lawsuit when the video was overwritten. In the absence of evidence of bad faith, defendant’s answer should not have been struck for spoliation of evidence.

 

, , ,

REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT THE SUSPECT’S TRIAL; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 79-H, THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW, WHICH PROTECTS REPORTERS FROM SUBPOENAS WHEN THE REPORTER’S TESTIMONY IS NOT “CRITICAL OR NECESSARY” TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the petitioner, a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect (Ramsaran) prior to his conviction (which was overturned), was entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of a subpoena to testify at the suspect’s second murder trial  The People did not meet the criteria required by Civil Rights Law 79-h known as the New York Shield Law:

… [P]etitioner has made a sufficient showing that, if in error, respondent (County Court Judge) exceeded his jurisdiction and power in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena and in ordering her to testify to the information that she obtained in her capacity as a journalist in contravention of Civil Rights Law § 79-h. * * *

To overcome the qualified privilege afforded to petitioner under the New York Shield Law, it was incumbent on the People to make “a clear and specific showing that the news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical or necessary to the maintenance of a party’s claim, defense or proof of an issue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternative source” … . * * *

Even accepting that the information was “highly material and relevant” to the prosecution of Ramsaran, the People failed to establish that it was “critical or necessary.” There is a multitude of other evidence against Ramsaran, including the statements that he made during his telephone calls to 911, his girlfriend and to the police, as well as DNA evidence of the blood found on his clothes and the victim’s van. Contrary to the People’s contentions, Ramsaran’s statements during the interview do not contradict any of his other statements, but rather corroborate other available evidence against him … . Matter of Canning v Revoir, 2023 NY Slip Op 04623, Third Dept 9-14-23

Practice Point: This is a rare example of the granting of a writ of prohibition preventing a judge from enforcing a subpoena. The subpoena sought the testimony of a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect. The People did not meet the criteria of the New York Shield Law which protects reporters from subpoenas when the reporter’s testimony is not “critical or necessary” to the People’s case.

 

, ,

A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined liability issues should not have been considered at the inquest where defendant had defaulted:

By defaulting, the defendant admitted “all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … . As such, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability … . Znojewski v Mamczur, 2023 NY Slip Op 04617, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: A defaulting party admits the allegations in the complaint. Liability issues are off limits at an inquest to determine damages.

 

,

A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB BAR IN A SHOWER STALL; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE AND NUMEROUS OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined that the facts alleged, a shower-stall floor that was slippery when wet, and the absence of a grab bar in the shower, did not state a cause of action for negligence because the allegations did not describe a duty owed to plaintiff:

… [T]he complaint alleged as defects that the shower floor was slippery and there were no grab bars in the shower stall where Royanne Weiss alleged she slipped and fell. However, there is no common-law or statutory requirement imposing a duty upon the defendants to provide nonslip surfacing or grab bars in a shower or shower stall … . Nor is there a duty to install such devices where the shower and shower stall were not alleged to be defective or hazardous for ordinary use . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted dismissal of the cause of action alleging common-law negligence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Weiss v Vacca, 2023 NY Slip Op 04613, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: The property owner did not have a duty to provide a non-slip floor or a grab bar in the shower stall which was not alleged to be defective or hazardous for ordinary use.

 

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