You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the defendant JUUL, the manufacture of electronic cigarettes, and two corporate officers involved JUUL’s marketing campaign in New York. The complaint alleged “causes of action pursuant to General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for deceptive acts and practices and for false advertising, respectively; pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), for repeated and persistent fraud and illegal conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC § 45); and, for public nuisance.”:

… [T]he People submitted internal emails and reports demonstrating … that defendants traveled to New York City for investment meetings … ; that defendants personally attended JUUL’s launch party in New York City …, JUUL also sought to arrange in-person meetings between defendants and both “New York targets” and broadcast media organizations; and, that defendants and JUUL considered the New York City launch to have been a success.

… [D]efendants were involved in marketing strategy, which included … months of events in New York; identifying New York as the target of JUUL’s northeastern U.S. marketing efforts, at and after launch; advertising on billboards in Times Square; hosting in-store product samplings at New York vape shops and social events; and escalating marketing efforts in the New York City metropolitan area post-launch. After New York proved to be a substantial market for JUUL’s product, defendants went so far as to describe the efforts as “NYC takeover” and to declare that New York City users should be “the focus of [JUUL’s] branding/marketing.”

This evidence establishes that defendants conducted sufficient in-person activities within New York State related to the People’s claims against them in this action, and sufficiently supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: Here New York demonstrated it had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and two corporate officers involved in marketing the cigarettes in New York. The complaint alleged deceptive business practices, fraud and public nuisance.

 

, ,

TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that dismissal for failure to prosecute requires more than one instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the trial date). Rather, a pattern of neglect must be shown in order to deprive plaintiff of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a):

While the prior action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreadiness to go forward with the trial as scheduled on December 16, 2022 … , the … trial court, in dismissing the case, did not set forth on the record any additional instances of neglect by the plaintiff that could “demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 205[a] …), as opposed to one particular lapse, namely, the lack of readiness on the trial date. The court’s statement that the case had been “languishing since 2010” does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any “specific conduct . . . demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay” (CPLR 205[a] …). As this Court has recently held, a “general pattern of delay” must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Fox, 2023 NY Slip Op 00046, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff will not be deprived of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a) unless there has been more than a single instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready for trial). In addition, the judge must, in the order dismissing the action, set forth the facts demonstrating a pattern of neglect before the plaintiff will be prohibited from recommencing the action.

 

,

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT LIABILITY ON A PIERCING-THE-CORPORATE-VEIL THEORY AND THE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL SOMETHING WAS NOT A BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to hold defendant MMC liable on a piercing-the-corporate veil theory in this medical malpractice case:

… [T]he complaint does not contain allegations sufficient to support holding MMC liable on a theory of piercing the corporate veil, since it does not allege facts supporting a finding that MMC completely dominated and controlled Nyack Hospital or abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form (CPLR 3211[a][7] … ). Moreover, the lack of discovery does not excuse plaintiff’s failure to plead any facts that would support piercing the corporate veil …, and the hope that something will turn up in discovery is an insufficient basis to deny the motion to dismiss … . Yovich v Montefiore Nyack Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: If a complaint doesn’t allege facts demonstrating complete domination and control or abuse of the privilege of doing business in the corporate form the cause of action relying on the piercing-the-corporate-veil theory will be dismissed. The hope that discovery will reveal something relevant is not enough to prevent dismissal.

 

,

THE MOTION COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ADMITTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT A COUNTER STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ failure to submit a counter statement of undisputed facts (22 NYCRR 202.8-g[b]) should not have been deemed an admission to plaintiff’s statement of material facts. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted:

Although the court had discretion under section 202.8-g (former [c]) to deem the assertions in plaintiff’s statement of material facts admitted, it was not required to do so … .  “[B]lind adherence to the procedure set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.8-g” was not mandated … .

Here, considering that plaintiff’s statement of material facts did not fully comply with 22 NYCRR 202.8-g (d) and ignored the pivotal factual dispute arising from discovery, we conclude that, although it would have been better practice for defendants to “submit a paragraph-by-paragraph response to plaintiff’s statement” … , “the court abused its discretion in deeming the entire statement admitted” … . On the Water Prods., LLC v Glynos, 2022 NY Slip Op 07320, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff submitted a statement of material facts but defendants did not submit a counter statement of undisputed facts. The motion court was not required to deem the statement of material facts admitted and should not have done so under the specific circumstances of this case. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted.

 

, , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this dog-bite case were not entitled to summary judgment, the action was not frivolous, and defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. In addition, the summary judgment motion, made before discovery, was deemed premature. The court found there were questions of fact whether defendants, including the landlord (held to an ordinary negligence standard) were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The relationships among the parties and the unsuccessful arguments made by defendants in support of summary judgment are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… “[A]n owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities” … . “Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … .

… “[A] landlord who, with knowledge that a prospective tenant has a vicious dog which will be kept on the premises, nonetheless leases the premises to such tenant without taking reasonable measures, by pertinent provisions in the lease or otherwise, to protect persons who might be on the premises from being attacked by the dog may be held liable [under a negligence standard] to a person who while thereafter on the premises is bitten by the dog” … . When, “during the term of the leasehold[,] a landlord becomes aware of the fact that [the] tenant is harboring an animal with vicious propensities, [the landlord] owes a duty to protect third persons from injury . . . if [the landlord] ‘had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal’ ” … . Michael P. v Dombroski, 2022 NY Slip Op 07318, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: A landlord who is aware of a dog’s vicious propensities can be held liable in a dog-bite case under a standard negligence theory.

 

, ,

THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in this dog-bite case by adding a negligence cause of action was properly denied. The Court of Appeals recently held that a veterinarian could be liable for a dog-bite under a negligence theory where a dog in the veterinarian’s waiting room bit a customer. Here the dog was owned by an animal society and had been placed with defendant O’Rourke until the society could find someone to adopt him:

Although O’Rourke does not own the dog that bit plaintiff, “[a]n owner’s strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of a dog ‘extends to a person who harbors the animal although not its owner’ ” … . * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, … [plaintiff could assert] a negligence cause of action against O’Rourke, … plaintiff would still have to establish in support of her negligence cause of action that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s alleged “vicious propensities” … . … “[T]he vicious propensity notice rule has been applied to animal owners who are held to a strict liability standard, as well as to certain non-pet owners—such as landlords who rent to pet owners—under a negligence standard … .

… [P]laintiff’s proposed negligence cause of action against O’Rourke does not allege that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities; instead, it alleges that O’Rourke was negligent because she did not “investigate the subject dog accepted from the foster care program . . . before introducing it to her property, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the property which she had a nondelegable duty to keep reasonably safe.” The proposed complaint therefore fails to state a viable negligence cause of action against O’Rourke. Cicero v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 07316, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals recently held a veterinarian could be liable under a standard negligence theory for a dog-bite which occurs in the veterinarian’s waiting room because of the specialized knowledge of animal behavior attributed to a veterinarian. The negligence standard does not apply to a person who is harboring a dog for an animal society until someone adopts the dog. In that case, the strict liability (requiring knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities) standard still applies.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant in this pedestrian-vehicle-accident case was not required to disclose privileged medical (mental health) information which was provided to the sentencing court in the related criminal case as a “mitigation report:”

“CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes discovery of a party’s mental or physical condition when that party’s condition has been placed in controversy” … . Nevertheless, even where a defendant’s mental or physical condition is in controversy, discovery will be precluded if the information falls within the physician-patient privilege and the defendant has not waived that privilege … . Where the physician-patient privilege has not been waived, the party asserting the privilege may “avoid revealing the substance of confidential communications made to [his or] her physician, but may not refuse to testify as to relevant medical incidents or facts concerning [himself or] herself” … .

We agree with defendant that he did not waive the physician-patient privilege by disclosing his mental health information in the sentencing phase of the related criminal proceeding. Here, defendant submitted the mitigation report in the criminal proceeding for the court’s consideration in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Thus, this is not a case where a criminal defendant waived any privilege applicable to that defendant’s mental health records by raising a justification or other affirmative defense to be litigated in the criminal proceeding … . Instead, the mitigation report was prepared for and “submitted directly to the court[] in connection with the question of sentence” and, as a result, the mitigation report is “confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1] …). Johnson v Amadorzabala,, 2022 NY Slip Op 07355, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The defendant in this personal injury case did not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting mental health records to the sentencing court in the related criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the mitigation report was for the judge’s eyes only and was confidential.

 

, , , ,

BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the dismissal of plaintiff bus-driver’s causes of action against the estate of driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s county bus, and against Jewish Family Services (JFS) for whom the decedent-driver was volunteering at the time of the accident. JFS and the county collaborated on a program to drive senior citizens to medical appointments. Plaintiff sued JFS under a respondeat superior theory. Pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation benefits were plaintiff’s exclusive remedy because both she and the driver of the car had been deemed county employees in a related action:

A review of the papers supporting [the county’s] cross motion [in the related proceeding] establishes, however, that [the county] focused upon the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Plaintiff thereafter had a full and fair opportunity to respond to that issue, which was discussed at length in the 2019 order. Indeed, Supreme Court … expressly held that the provisions of that statute applied because “both [plaintiff] and Hyde were within the same employ and acting within the scope of employment at the time the alleged injuries occurred, therefore rendering them co-employees which results in workers’ compensation being the exclusive remedy.” Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde were coemployees was “actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided” against plaintiff … .

Plaintiff’s claim against JFS is premised upon the theory that JFS exercised sufficient control over Hyde to render it vicariously liable for her negligence. The issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde are coemployees has been resolved against plaintiff with preclusive effect, however, and plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the negligence of Hyde is therefore workers’ compensation benefits. As noted above, as Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) “deprive[s] the injured employee of a right to maintain an action against a negligent coemployee, [it also] bars a derivative action which necessarily is dependent upon the same claim of negligence for which the exclusive remedy has been provided” … . Thus, as “plaintiff[] did not assert any allegation that [JFS] had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence,” the cross motion of JFS for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it should have been granted … . Bryant v Gulnick, 2022 NY Slip Op 07284, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In a related proceeding it was determined that both plaintiff bus driver and the driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s bus were county employees. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH TWO CHILDREN HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S CARE AFTER NEGLECT FINDINGS AND MOTHER ALLEGEDLY CONCEALED HER PREGNANCY AND FAILED TO SEEK APPROPRIATE PRENATAL CARE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING MOTHER HAD NEGLECTED HER NEWBORN WAS NOT APPROPRIATE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined summary judgment finding respondent mother had neglected and derivatively neglected her newborn baby was not appropriate. Two children had been removed from mother’s care based on neglect findings,. Mother allegedly had concealed her pregnancy and allegedly had not sought appropriate prenatal case. But triable issues of fact remained. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

Upon review of the record and considering the nature of the prior neglect findings, the passage of time, and the questions concerning the degree of progress made by respondent over that time, we find that there are triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b] …). Petitioner’s motion was centered upon the two prior findings of neglect and respondent’s failure to abide by the corresponding orders of disposition … . However, the petition itself acknowledged that respondent had recently become more compliant with petitioner, resulting in expanded visitation with her children, and had been making improvements in her engagement with services and communication skills. According to the petition, respondent had put together a safety plan for the subject child to live with her, and petitioner saw this as “a strength” and was “hopeful in working with” respondent on this plan. Further, petitioner pointed out in opposition to the motion that she had improved her housing and employment situation and ended a relationship with an abusive partner…. .

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a fact-finding hearing concerning the allegations in the petition … . Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit to a different judge for the purpose of conducting the hearing. Matter of Ja’layna FF. (Jalyssa GG.), 2022 NY Slip Op 07271, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Summary judgment is almost never appropriate in a child-neglect matter. Here summary judgment finding mother had neglected her newborn based on neglect findings re: two other children and allegations mother had concealed her pregnancy and failed to seek appropriate prenatal care was reversed. There existed several triable issue of fact, including recent cooperation by mother. The matter was remitted for a hearing in front of a different judge.

 

,

THE HUSBAND DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ILL WHEN THE DIVORCE TRIAL WAS HELD AND THE WIFE MAY NOT BE ENTITLED TO A PORTION OF HIS WORLD TRADE CENTER ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE PERSONAL-INJURY BENEFITS CONSTITUTE SEPARATE PROPERTY; THE HUSBAND’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the husband’s motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted. The husband demonstrated he missed the trial because of illness and he had a meritorious argument that the World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits were personal-injury benefits which constituted his personal property:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015 … a court may vacate an order “upon the ground of excusable default, if such motion is made within one year” after such order … . “[A] party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious . . . defense” to the underlying claim … . Significantly, “in recognition of the important public policy of determining matrimonial actions on the merits, the courts of this State have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in actions for divorce” … . * * *

… [I]n support of his motion to vacate the default, the husband proffered an affidavit wherein he averred that on the day of the hearing he was suffering from shingles and, as such, he was in extreme pain, sleep deprived, disoriented and unable to leave his bed. The husband also submitted an affidavit from a physician’s assistant who diagnosed him with, and treated him for, shingles approximately two weeks prior to the date of the trial. She also averred that she saw the husband again the day following the missed trial and that she “observed a noticeable progression of the shingles rash on [the husband’s] body.” … . …

… [T]he husband claims that the wife is not entitled to the portion of his pension that is for World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits. “While it is true that the portion of a disability pension which represents compensation for personal injuries is separate property, the party so claiming bears the burden of demonstrating what portion of the pension reflects compensation for personal injuries, as opposed to deferred compensation” … . Zeledon v Zeledon, 2022 NY Slip Op 07279, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the husband’s illness at the time of trial was a reasonable excuse for his default and the argument that the wife was not entitled to his World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits which constituted his separate property (personal-injury benefits) was meritorious. Therefore the husband’s CPLR 5015 motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted.

 

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