You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

APPELLANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT HAD LEFT DEFENDANT-PRACTICE AT THE TIME THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE; THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE SUIT; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ADD THE APPELLANT AS A DEFENDANT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to add appellant, a physician’s assistant, to this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. The statute of limitations has run and the relation-back theory was not supported by evidence appellant had timely notice of the suit. Appellant had stopped working for defendant practice at the time the suit was commenced:

“In order for a claim asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claim was filed against another defendant, the plaintiffs must establish that (1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he [or she] will not be prejudiced in maintaining his [or her] defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiffs as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him [or her] as well” … . “The linchpin of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden as to the third prong of the relation-back doctrine. The record establishes that the appellant was no longer working for the practice at the time of the commencement of the action, and there is no evidence that she had actual or constructive knowledge within the limitations period of the commencement of the action … . Dixon v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 03336, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: To add a defendant to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run under the relation-back doctrine, plaintiff must demonstrate the party to be added had timely notice of the suit, not the case here.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the second motion for summary judgment made by the bank in this foreclosure action was not a valid motion to renew and violated the “successive summary judgment rule:”

“While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance. When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal” … . … [P]laintiff failed to provide any justification for its failure to present the new evidence supporting the second motion as part of its prior motion.

“Even considered as a successive motion for summary judgment, such a motion ‘should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to present good cause.

The second motion also did not fit within the “narrow exception” to the successive summary judgment rule … . This narrow exception permits entertainment of a successive motion when it is “substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts” … . Here, entertaining a second summary judgment motion involved review of multiple disputed issues, including whether the plaintiff established the defendants’ default, the plaintiff’s compliance with the contractual condition precedent, and the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Thus, rather than eliminating a burden on the Supreme Court, the court’s consideration of the second motion actually imposed an additional burden on the court. “‘Successive motions for the same relief burden the courts and contribute to the delay and cost of litigation. A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance'” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gittens, 2023 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The failure to explain why available evidence was not submitted in the first summary judgment motion will result in denial of a motion to renew.

Practice Point: The second motion here violated the “successive summary judgment motion” rule. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined outstanding discovery furnished good cause for plaintiff’s late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. The appellate division then reached the merits and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

… [P]laintiff demonstrated good cause for his delay in moving for summary judgment … . As an initial matter, we note that the court directed the plaintiff, over the plaintiff’s objection, to file a note of issue or face sanctions or dismissal of the action, despite the fact that a significant amount of discovery, including … the depositions of the parties, had yet to occur … . * * *

… [P]laintiff established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendants’ failures, as the owner and the general contractor at the construction site, to satisfy their nondelegable duty to provide him with a safe and adequate ladder necessary for him to perform his elevation-related work at the site … . * * *

… [D]efendants established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by demonstrating that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition that the plaintiff alleged caused his injuries and that they had no authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident … . Panfilow v 66 E. 83rd St. Owners Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03357, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Outstanding discovery constitutes good cause for a late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment.

Practice Point: Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall cause.

Practice Point: Defendants entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action–no notice of the condition and no authority to control the means and methods of plaintiff’s work.

 

, ,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered closure of the courtroom pursuant to Judiciary Law section 4 in this divorce proceeding. The criteria for closure of a courtroom are discussed in some detail. Here the judge ordered some documents to be submitted under seal and then based the closure on the existence of sealed documents as evidence. That justification for closure is not one of the exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4:

The motion court did not provide the public and the press adequate notice of the husband’s courtroom closure request. Because it directed the parties to file their submissions on the application for courtroom closure by email, the submissions were not reflected on “the publicly maintained docket entries,” as required … .

We also reverse on substantive grounds. “Public access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law . . . and as statutory imperative …” … . In the order appealed here, the motion court improperly read an exception into the “statutory imperative” of NY Judiciary Law §4 that does not exist. The first part of that statute, entitled “Sittings of courts to be public,” states: “The sittings of every court within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same . . .” The only exceptions to this rule are set forth in the statute’s next sentence: “except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for divorce, seduction, rape, assault with intent to commit rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court” … .

Here, the motion court used its discretion to insert another, unwritten category of cases into the statutory exception: proceedings that could entail arguments that implicate documents filed under seal. We find its decision to do so to have been improper … . Paulson v Paulson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: A request for courtroom closure must be accessible by the public, not concealed in email exchanges.

Practice Point: Courtroom closure based on a reason not included in the public-trial exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4 is an abuse of discretion.

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES FOR A BREACH; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS TO, SUA SPONTE, AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent (LOI) was an agreement to agree which, if breached, supported only out-of-pocket damages, not cover damages. The judge improperly relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs:

… [R]ecovery for breach of a preliminary agreement’s confidentiality provision could not be based on “the theory that it would have acquired” the company at issue, as the “defendant[] w[as] not bound to go forward with the transaction” … . * * *

… [T]he text of the LOI and the surrounding circumstances support a finding that the parties did not contemplate cover damages at the time of contracting. That the parties entered only a preliminary agreement with no obligation to close a transaction and no specific damage provision for breach conclusively shows that defendant did not wish to assume the risk of covering whatever replacement transaction plaintiffs might pursue … .

… [T]he court improperly relied on credibility determinations to resolve material issues that should have been resolved by the jury. It is “not the function of a court deciding a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations” … . Cresco Labs N.Y., LLC v Fiorello Pharms., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: Here the letter of intent was an agreement to agree which contemplated only out-of-pocket damages for a breach.

Practice Point: The judge should not have relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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