You are here: / Civil Procedure

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.

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE-ORDER COVID TOLLS APPLY TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE, RENDERING THE INDICTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the speedy-trial statute was tolled by the COVID executive orders, rendering the prosecution of defendant timely:

Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a felony, the People are required to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30[1][a] …). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided “Section 30.30 and Section 190.80 of the criminal procedure law are suspended to the extent necessary to toll any time periods contained therein for the period during which the criminal action is proceeding on the basis of a felony complaint through arraignment on the indictment or on a superior court information and thereafter shall not be tolled” … . Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-202.106).

Contrary to the determination of the County Court, while it was in effect, Executive Order No. 202.87 constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … . People v Fuentes, 2023 NY Slip Op 02892, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: The COVID tolls imposed by Executive Order apply to the speedy trial statute, rendering the indictment in this case timely.

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS IN CYPRUS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the proof of domestic violence at the upcoming custody trial should not have been limited to incidents occurring after the Hague Convention proceedings in Cyprus:

… [T]hat aspect of the order that limits the proof of domestic violence that the mother may try to introduce at the forthcoming custody trial to incidents that have occurred since conclusion of the Hague Convention proceedings, is vacated. The court correctly recognized “[a] decision under the Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence” … . However, it then effectively vested the Hague Convention proceedings with preclusive effect as to claims of domestic violence, by ruling that, at the impending custody hearing, the mother could only seek to introduce evidence of domestic violence that has occurred since those proceedings’ conclusion. There should have been no such temporal limitation imposed on the domestic violence evidence the mother may seek to introduce. Gould v Kontogiorge, 2023 NY Slip Op 02824, First Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have limited proof of domestic violence at the upcoming custody trial to incidents occurring after the Hague Convention proceedings in Cyprus. A Hague Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TOOK PLACE; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim sufficiently stated when the alleged sexual assault occurred in this Child Victims Act action:

“Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires a claim to specify (1) the nature of the claim; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … . A failure to comply with the requirements set forth in section 11(b) is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim … . “[A] sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim” is necessary because “[t]he purpose of the section 11(b) pleading requirements is . . . to enable the State to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . “Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed” … . However, “‘[a]bsolute exactness is not required,'” so long as the particulars of the claim are detailed in a manner sufficient to permit investigation … . * * * The Court of Claims erred in directing dismissal of so much of the claim as relates to the alleged sexual assault perpetrated by Hector. The claimant alleged, inter alia, that she was admitted to RPC in 1969 when she was 10 years old, and that Hector assaulted her in the auditorium in the first year of her admission. Contrary to the State’s argument, the claimant was not required to allege the exact dates on which the sexual abuse occurred …”. Wimbush-Burkett v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02804, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act action, the claim sufficiently alleged the time of the sexual assault. The criteria for a sufficient claim under Court of Claims Act section 11(b) are laid out.

 

,

FAMILY COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED NEW YORK WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM IN THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, BUT THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED, NOT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined Family Court properly decided New York was not the appropriate forum for this custody dispute between father in New York and mother and child in Texas, but Family Court should have stayed, not dismissed, the New York proceedings:

Based on the record before us, we agree with the Family Court that Texas is the more appropriate and convenient forum. The child has not resided in New York since May of 2020. The child also has had no significant connection to New York since 2020, and the substantial, relevant evidence pertaining to the child’s care, protection, education, and personal relationships is in Texas, not New York. Accordingly, the statutory factors weigh in favor of the court’s determination to decline to exercise jurisdiction.

However, Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(3) specifies that “[i]f a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state.” Accordingly, the Family Court erred in granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the petition … . Matter of Waters v Yacopino, 2023 NY Slip Op 02792, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court properly found that New York was not the appropriate forum for the custody dispute. But the proper procedure is to stay the New York proceedings, not dismiss them.

 

, ,

A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST BE DENIED IF IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY’S CASE, EVEN IF THE MOTION HAS MERIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law in this foreclosure action was premature because it was made before the close of plaintiff’s case:

During the trial, the defendant objected to the admission of a copy of the underlying note. The Supreme Court declined to admit the note into evidence, and the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing that the plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case. … [T]he court granted the defendant’s motion, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and directed the County Clerk to cancel and discharge the notice of pendency. …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him was made before the close of the plaintiff’s case, and was not based upon an admission by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been denied as premature … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Waheed, 2023 NY Slip Op 02774, Second Dept 5-24-23

Practice Point: A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 must be denied as premature if it is brought before the opposing party closes its case, even in the motion has merit.

 

, , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclose because the evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note was insufficient. The court noted Supreme Court should not have considered evidence first submitted in reply:

Although the vice president of loan documentation attested in her affidavit, based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, that an allonge containing an endorsement in blank by “Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation As Receiver of AmTrust Bank fka Ohio Savings Bank” was attached to the consolidated note, she did not aver that the allonge was “firmly affixed” to the consolidated note within the meaning of UCC 3-202(2). “Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Moreover, the affidavit was sworn to on January 9, 2020, subsequent to the commencement of this action, and the affiant did not state when she reviewed the copy of the note and the allonge. Thus, her affidavit was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the allonge was “so firmly affixed [to the consolidated note] as to become a part thereof” (UCC 3-202[2]) at the time of commencement of either the 2014 action or the 2015 action … . Nor did the affidavit of the employee of the plaintiff’s attorneys establish compliance with the requirements of UCC 3-202(2), as it made no reference to an allonge to the consolidated note.

Affidavits submitted by the plaintiff with its reply papers, asserting that the allonge was attached to the consolidated note at the time of commencement of the 2015 action, should not have been considered by the Supreme Court, since a party moving for summary judgment “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mitselmakher, 2023 NY Slip Op 02709, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to foreclose the bank must show the allonge was “firmly attached” to the note within the meaning of UCC 3-303(2). The bank’s evidence here was insufficient.

Practice Point: Evidence first submitted in reply should not be considered in support of the prima facie burden for summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, explained the proper procedure where it is alleged the complaint should be dismissed for failure to include a necessary party, here the failure to include an estate in a foreclosure action. First the court should determine whether the party can be summoned, noting that the expiration of the statute of limitations is does not bar summoning the party. Second, if the party cannot be summoned the court should determine whether the action can continue in the party’s absence:

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1311 (1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . “Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action” … .

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but rather for the court to order that the necessary party be summoned (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Contrary to the intervenors’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of a representative of [the] estate at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations, because the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional defect … .  … [W]hen jurisdiction over an absent necessary party “can be obtained only by [that party’s] consent or appearance, the court, when justice requires, may allow the action to proceed without [that party],” upon consideration of various enumerated factors (CPLR 1001[b] …). U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Germoso, 2023 NY Slip Op 02704, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here an estate was a necessary party in the foreclosure action. The proper procedure is for the court to determine if the party can be summoned, and, if not, whether the action can continue in the party’s absence. The fact that the statute of limitations had run did not preclude summoning the estate.

 

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