You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined: (1) the email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys did not constitute a settlement agreement; and (2) to be valid any stipulation of settlement must be placed on the record in open court, reduced to a court order and contained in a writing subscribed by the parties or counsel (not done here). The case concerns a dispute over the distribution of the estate of the deceased between the deceased’s daughter and wife. There was a two-justice dissent which argued a valid settlement agreement had been reached. The dissent made no mention of the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement:

Surrogate’s Court erred in finding that a binding agreement was formed, as the parties did not mutually assent to all material terms. To the extent that the daughter’s counsel asserts that the initial email set out an overview of the material terms to which the parties agreed during the ADR session, we note that such verbal out-of-court agreements are insufficient to form the basis for a stipulation of settlement (see CPLR 2104 …). The initial email and the subsequent correspondence also fail to establish that the parties reached an agreement. * * *

We also remind the parties that, to be enforceable, stipulations of settlement require more than just an agreement among the parties. Once the parties to an active litigation reach an agreement, they must (1) place the material terms of such agreement on the record in open court, (2) reduce them to a court order which is then signed and entered or (3) contain them in a writing subscribed by the parties or their counsel (see CPLR 2104 …). Matter of Eckert, 2023 NY Slip Op 03270, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question whether email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys after a settlement conference formed an enforceable settlement agreement. The majority said “no” and the two dissenters said “yes.” Although the issue does not seem to be determinative in this decision, the majority noted that the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement were not met (open court, reduced to an order, writing signed by the parties or counsel).

 

,

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a summary judgment motion brought before issue is joined should not be considered:

Initially, we discern no error with Supreme Court treating plaintiff’s order to show cause, filed two days after commencement of the action, essentially as a motion for summary judgment seeking ultimate relief … . However, “[a] motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and the requirement is strictly adhered to” … . “Particularly in an action for declaratory judgment, all of the material facts and circumstances should be fully developed before the respective rights of the parties may be adjudicated” … . Accordingly, rather than reaching the merits, Supreme Court should have determined that plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment at the time and denied the motion as premature … . That defendant answered and issue was joined prior to the return date of the order to show cause does not change this determination … . Sackett v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 03274, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion is premature if brought before issue is joined and should not be considered by the court.

 

,

WHERE DEFENDANTS AVER SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUT THE STATEMENTS IN THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants presented sufficient facts to rebut the presumption they were properly served with the summons and complaint, requiring a hearing:

“Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served” … Bare and unsubstantiated denials of receipt of the summons and complaint are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service … . “However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit, and necessitates an evidentiary hearing” … . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue”… .

Here, the process servers’ affidavits of service constituted prima facie evidence of valid service upon the defendants at the subject New York and Florida properties … . However, since the defendants’ sworn denial of receipt of process at both properties contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process servers’ affidavits, the presumption of proper service was rebutted and an evidentiary hearing was required … . Aikens v Kouchnerova, 2023 NY Slip Op 03218, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: A defendant’s mere denial of receipt of a summons and complaint is not enough to rebut the presumption of valid service. But where a defendant avers specific facts which rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit, an evidentiary hearing is required.

 

, ,

THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent-conveyances causes of action should have been dismissed as time-barred under New York’s borrowing statute. The properties which were conveyed are in Connecticut and the action is time-barred under Connecticut law:

Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred pursuant to CPLR 202, New York’s borrowing statute. Under CPLR 202, where a nonresident plaintiff asserts causes of action in a New York court, “the claim must be timely under both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued” … . “Consequently, . . . it is the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations that controls the timeliness of the action” … . For purposes of CPLR 202, “a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury” and “[w]hen an alleged injury is purely economic, the place of injury is usually where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss” … .

Here, plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut and alleges only economic injury. Moreover, it does not dispute that, under Connecticut law, where the claims accrued for purposes of the borrowing statute, the statute of limitations for the asserted causes of action has expired (see Conn Gen Stat § 52-552j …). National Auditing Servs. & Consulting, LLC v Assa, 2023 NY Slip Op 03198, First Dept 6-13-23

Practice Point: Causes of action which accrued in another state must be timely under both that state’s and New York’s statutes of limitations.

 

, , ,

AN ORAL STIPULATION IS INVALID PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW SECION 236(B)(3) AND CANNOT BE RATIFIED; THERE IS NOW AN EVEN SPLIT AMONG THE APPELLATE DIVISION DEPARTMENTS ON THIS ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting a split among the appellate-division departments, determined an oral stipulation was invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3):

… [T]he parties’ oral stipulation is not enforceable because, although it was entered in open court, it was not reduced to writing, subscribed, or acknowledged by the parties, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3). Although plaintiff’s attorney stated at the time of the oral stipulation that she “would prefer just to do the oral stipulation,” the statute unambiguously provides that, in order for an agreement regarding maintenance or a distributive award “made before or during the marriage” to be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action, the agreement must be “in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded” … . We have repeatedly held that oral stipulations do not comply with the statute … . …

… Supreme Court erred in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff ratified the oral stipulation. The proposition that an agreement that fails to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3) could be upheld if ratified by the parties was implicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals in Matisoff.[90 NY2d 135-136] … . Cole v Hoover, 2023 NY Slip Op 03103, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: An oral stipulation is invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3) and cannot be ratified. There is now an even split among the appellate division departments on this issue.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s decedent’s primary care physician (PCP) did not prove whether or when the decedent was informed of the foreign object (a sponge) which was left in decedent’s pelvis after surgery. The PCP’s affidavit relied on custom or habit evidence, which was not sufficient. Therefore defendants did not prove whether or when decedent was informed of the foreign object. The complaint should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

“[E]vidence of habit has, since the days of the common-law reports, generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions because one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances arise again” … . “The applicability of this doctrine is limited to cases where the proof demonstrates a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances . . . as opposed to conduct however frequent yet likely to vary from time to time depending upon the surrounding circumstances” … .

In order to establish the admissibility of the PCP’s habit evidence, defendants were required to establish that the PCP engaged in a routine practice of informing patients of the results of their diagnostic procedures and that his practice did not vary from patient to patient … . We conclude that defendants failed to do so. The affidavit of decedent’s PCP, submitted in support of the motions, explicitly concedes that the manner in which he informs patients of the results of diagnostic procedures varies. * * *

Inasmuch as defendants failed to establish that decedent was or should have been aware of the presence of the foreign body more than one year prior to commencing this action, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to aver evidentiary facts establishing that the limitations period had not expired, that it was tolled, or that an exception to the statute of limitations applied … . Baker v Eastern Niagara Hosp., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03090, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant physician’s custom or habit of informing patients of the presence of a foreign object was insufficient. Therefore this medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. Defendant did not prove whether or when decedent was informed of the foreign object.

 

, ,

THE LOCAL LAW WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CERTAIN FELONY CONVICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED TO APPLY ONLY TO CONVICTIONS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Local Law which disqualified candidates who have certain felony convictions from running for city council and other officers should not have been interpreted to apply only to convictions after the enactment of the Local Law. Given the importance of the law, the proceeding should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and decided on an expedited schedule because of the impending primary election:

Under the circumstances presented, where plaintiffs, without good reason, waited until shortly before the upcoming June 27, 2023 Democratic primary election to bring this action seeking a determination as to the constitutional and procedural validity of Local Law 15, enacted in February 2021, and to bring this motion seeking injunctive relief barring its enforcement, on an expedited basis that would not permit meaningful review of the important issues and that necessarily would result in electoral disruption, the court should not have converted, with limited notice to the City, the motion to one for summary judgment and resolved the merits of plaintiffs’ claims on an expedited schedule. * * *

We also find that the court, in prematurely resolving the merits of plaintiffs’ challenges, erred to the extent it construed, against the statutory reading proffered by both parties in the motion court, Local Law 15 as not disqualifying candidates based on the specified felony convictions where the convictions predated the law’s enactment in February 2021. A reading of the statutory language that the law applies to any person who “has been convicted” makes clear, on its face, that the law applies to both pre- and post-enactment convictions and, as the City shows, the legislative comments entirely support that reading, as do the subsequent practices of the Board of Elections. Martinez v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03073, First Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: The matter should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and determined on an expedited schedule because of the impending election. The Local Law which disqualifies candidates with certain felony convictions from running for local offices should not have been interpreted to apply only to convictions after the enactment of the local law.

 

,

PLAINTIFF-BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff-bank’s CPLR 306-b motion to extend the time for the service of the summons and complaint:

CPLR 306-b provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action . . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.”

“The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of 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. However, 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 defendant” … . CPLR 306-b “empowers a court faced with the dismissal of a viable claim to consider any factor relevant to the exercise of its discretion. No one factor is determinative—the calculus of the court’s decision is dependent on the competing interests of the litigants and a clearly expressed desire by the Legislature that the interests of justice be served” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Cruz with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, considering, inter alia, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff’s prompt request for the extension, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice to [defendant]. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Lottihall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02999, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: The criteria for an “interest of justice,” versus a “good cause shown,” extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b explained.

 

THE MOTION TO INTERVENE DID NOT HAVE THE PROPOSED PLEADING ATTACHED; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene should have been denied because the proposed pleading was not attached to the motion:

A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made pursuant to CPLR 1012 or 1013, must include the proposed intervenor’s proposed pleading (see CPLR 1014 …). Here, Plotch did not submit a proposed pleading with her motion for leave to intervene, nor did she submit an affidavit which in some cases may excuse the failure to attach a proposed pleading … . Plotch’s reliance on Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc. (145 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2016]) for the proposition that no proposed pleading is required is misplaced. That case made no reference to CPLR 1014, which specifically provides that “[a] motion to intervene shall be accompanied by a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought” … . U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v 21647 LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02955, First Dept 6-1-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to intervene should have been denied because the proposed pleading was not attached.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to an in camera review her assailant’s (Downing’s) medical records to discovery of any non-privileged references to his aggressive behavior. Plaintiff was a nurse assigned to work in defendant’s hospital when she was assaulted by defendant patient:

Information relating to the nature of medical treatment and the diagnoses made, including “information communicated by the patient while the physician attends the patient in a professional capacity, as well as information obtained from observation of the patient’s appearance and symptoms,” is privileged (…see CPLR 4504; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1] …). However, “[t]he physician-patient privilege generally does not extend to information obtained outside the realms of medical diagnosis and treatment” … .

Here, the plaintiff seeks information as to any prior aggressive or violent acts by Downing. Information of a nonmedical nature regarding prior aggressive or violent acts is not privileged … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an in camera review of the subject hospital records, to determine which records contain nonprivileged information that is subject to disclosure, and thereafter disclosure of such records … . Gooden v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02867, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here a nurse injured by a hospital patient was entitled to any non-privileged information about the patient’s aggressive behavior in the patient’s medical records. An in camera review of the records was ordered.

 

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