You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS PAID, WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED YET; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION HAS NOT YET STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indemnity and contribution causes of action in the slip and fall case should not have been dismissed as time-barred. The statute of limitations starts to run on these causes action when the underlying claim has been paid, which had not yet occurred:

“The statute of limitations on a claim for indemnity or contribution accrues only when the person seeking indemnity or contribution has paid the underlying claim” … . Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff has yet to recover any judgment against the defendants. Thus, since the sixth and seventh causes of action in the third-party complaint … are predicated upon [the] alleged obligation to indemnify the defendants, those causes of action have yet to accrue. Sibrian v 244 Madison Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06732, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: The causes of action for indemnity and contribution in this slip and fall case accrue when the underlying claim is paid, not when the slip and fall occurred. Here the underlying claim had not yet been paid and the statute never started running.

 

, ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT IDENTIFY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON FOR THE CALCULATIONS AND DID NOT ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; IN ADDITION THE HEARING ON NOTICE REQUIRED BY CPLR 4313 WAS NOT HELD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action was deficient because the business records used for the calculations were not identified or attached. In addition, the referee did not hold the evidentiary hearing required by CPLR 4313:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, with respect to the amount due on the mortgage loan, the referee based his findings on the affidavit of William Randolph, an employee of Seterus, Inc., the purported servicer of the mortgage loan, who asserted the total amount then due on the mortgage loan. Randolph, however, failed to identify the basis for his calculations, stating generally that the information in his affidavit was taken from the “business activities” of Seterus, Inc. Nor did Randolph attach any business records to his affidavit. Accordingly, Randolph’s assertions regarding the date of the defendant’s default in making his mortgage payments and the total sum due and owing under the mortgage loan constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage loan, as well as payments for taxes, insurance, and other advances, were not substantially supported by the record … .

Further, the referee should not have computed the amount due on the mortgage loan without holding a hearing on notice to the defendant. CPLR 4313 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless the order of reference otherwise provides, the referee shall forthwith notify the parties of a time and a place for the first hearing to be held.” Here, there was no language in the order of reference indicating that a hearing was unnecessary. [plaintiff’s] contention that the defendant waived his right to a hearing is without merit … . Thus, the defendant was entitled to notice pursuant to CPLR 4313 … . Onewest Bank, FSB v Feffer, 2022 NY Slip Op 06707, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the referee’s report does not identify the records relied upon for the calculations and does not attach those records, the report should not be confirmed. In addition, absent language in the order indication a hearing is not necessary, the calculations should not be made unless a hearing on notice pursuant to CPLR 4313 has been held.

 

, , ,

THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS UNSWORN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT; DESPITE PLAINTFF’S SIGNING A GENERIC CONSENT FORM, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined: (1) the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for some of the causes of action; (2) the plaintiffs’ expert’s unsworn affidavit raised questions of fact about a departure from the requisite standard of care (although the unsworn affidavit was not in admissible form, defendants did not object); and (3) the lack of informed consent cause of action should not have been dismissed:

… [C]ontinuous treatment may be found when a plaintiff “returns to the doctor because of continued pain in that area for which medical attention was first sought” … . Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated that, continuing until at least October 23, 2014, the injured plaintiff repeatedly sought treatment … for ongoing and sometimes increasing symptoms relating to her original complaints … . * * *

Although the unsworn affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert does not constitute competent evidence to oppose a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2106 … ), the defendants failed to object to the unsworn affidavit on this ground in the Supreme Court and, therefore, any deficiency in the submission has been waived … . * * *

“[T]he fact that the [injured] plaintiff signed a [generic] consent form does not establish [the defendants’] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” dismissing this cause of action insofar as asserted against the North Shore defendants … . … [T]he transcripts of the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and of the physicians … , submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, did not establish that the injured plaintiff was given sufficient information on the risks and alternatives regarding the materials used and the procedures performed. … [D]efendants failed to establish that a reasonably prudent person in the injured plaintiff’s position would not have declined to undergo the procedures if she or he had been fully informed of the risks and alternatives regarding the materials used and the procedures performed (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[3] …). Hall v Bolognese, 2022 NY Slip Op 06692, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here in this medical malpractice action the appellate court held: (1) the continuous treatment doctrine applied to toll the statute of limitations; (2) the unsworn affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert should have been considered because defendants did not object to it; (3) plaintiff’s signing a consent form did not preclude causes of action alleging a lack of informed consent.

 

WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to retore the action to the calendar after it was marked off because plaintiff failed to appear should have been granted. A note of issue had not been filed, there had been no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint. Therefore restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic:

Where, as here, the case was marked “inactive” before a note of issue had been filed, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 for failure to appear at a compliance conference, “‘restoring a case marked “inactive” is automatic'” … . Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “‘without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [it] engaged in dilatory conduct'” … . Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame … . Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s motion was not untimely. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v Schiro, 2022 NY Slip Op 06689. Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Where a case has been marked off as “inactive,” there is no note of issue, there has been no 90-day demand and there is not order dismissing the complaint, restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic.

 

IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence presented in plaintiff’s motion to renew was available at the time of the initial motion. Therefore plaintiff’s failure to explain the failure to include it required denial of the renewal motion:

Plaintiff moved under CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew defendants’ motion to vacate the default and compel arbitration. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted public court filings showing that the prior attorney was not incapacitated as he claimed between September 18 … and December 31 … and that the prior attorney had appeared in at least one hearing during that time. Plaintiff argued that the prior attorney’s explanation for his failure to appear on behalf of defendants, on which Supreme Court relied upon to vacate the default, contained material misrepresentations and that these new facts were sufficient to warrant renewal. In opposition, defendants submitted an affirmation from the prior attorney essentially reasserting the circumstances of his default. Supreme Court granted renewal, vacated the prior order, and reinstated the default judgment.

The record demonstrates that the court filings plaintiff relies on, which are matters of public record, existed at the time it submitted opposition to defendants’ vacatur motion. Plaintiff, however, did not provide in the renewal motion a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]…). Chris Grant Brohawk Films v Digital Seven LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06635, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: If a motion to renew is based upon evidence which was available at the time of the original motion, the failure must be explained. Here the absence of any explanation required denial of the motion to renew.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the town did not demonstrate it did not have written notice of the fallen signpost on the sidewalk (which plaintiff bicyclist allegedly struck), and (2) plaintiff demonstrated the town should comply with discovery demands for documents relating to the existence and repair of signs by the town:

The Town had the initial burden on the motion of establishing that no prior written notice of the alleged condition was given to either the Town Clerk or the Town Superintendent of Highways … . In support of its motion, the Town submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of an administrative aide in the Town Highway Department and the Town’s sign shop fabricator, each of whom testified that he did not learn of the fallen sign until he received the police report for the incident. However, neither employee testified that he searched the Highway Department’s or the Town Clerk’s records. Thus, the Town failed to establish as a matter of law that neither the Town Clerk nor the Town Superintendent of Highways received prior written notice of the alleged condition … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff met his burden of establishing that the discovery documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see generally CPLR 3101 [a]). In opposing the motion, the Town failed to establish that the discovery requests were unduly burdensome … . Garcia v Town of Tonawanda, 2022 NY Slip Op 06584, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Because the town did not demonstrate that it searched the highway department and town clerk’s records it did not demonstrate it had not received notice of the fallen signpost plaintiff bicyclist allegedly struck. Plaintiff was entitled to discovery of town documents relating to the repair of signs.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED BEYOND THE PLEADINGS IN CONSIDERING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the complaint:

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit” ( … see CPLR 3025 [b]). “A court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face” … . Here, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion inasmuch as there was no showing of prejudice arising from the proposed amendments … and the proposed amended complaint adequately asserts causes of action for slander of title … and removal of a cloud on title by reformation or cancellation of a deed … . In making its determination that the proposed causes of action were palpably insufficient, the court improperly looked beyond the face of the proposed pleading to the documents establishing the chain of title to plaintiffs’ properties and a 2011 deed from the Trustees of Grenell Island Chapel to defendant. DiGiacco v Grenell Is. Chapel, 2022 NY Slip Op 06576, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The judge should not have looked beyond the pleading in deciding the motion to amend.

 

,

IT IS ONLY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE LAW 63(3) THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AS OPPOSED TO A COUNTY PROSECUTOR) IS EMPOWERED BRING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWS REQUESTS FOR AN AG PROSECUTION ONLY FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; HERE THE CHIEF JUDGE REQUESTED THE PROSECUTION; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the attorney general (AG) from prosecuting him for alleged criminal offenses should be granted. The request for the prosecution came from a judge. Executive Law 63(3) does not authorize a request for prosecution from the judicial, as opposed to the executive, branch:

This CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition raises an issue of apparent first impression: whether the Attorney General may criminally prosecute an individual based on an Executive Law § 63(3) referral from the Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System. Executive Law § 63(3) authorizes the Attorney General of the State of New York, “[u]pon request of the governor, comptroller, secretary of state, commissioner of transportation, superintendent of financial services, commissioner of taxation and finance, commissioner of motor vehicles, or the state inspector general, or the head of any other department, authority, division or agency of the state,” to investigate and prosecute criminality relating to any matter connected with the referring entity. Petitioner, the subject of the criminal prosecution initiated and maintained by the AG based on the purported Executive Law § 63(3) referral by an officer within the Unified Court System, commenced this special proceeding for a writ of prohibition challenging the validity of the referral and the legality of the AG’s authority to prosecute him. We hold that an Executive Law § 63(3) referral can come only from an agency within the executive branch. Therefore, a referral from an officer within the Unified Court System — that is, the judicial branch of government — is not permitted by the statute, and, for the reasons discussed below, we grant prohibition relief to petitioner. Matter of Makhani v Kiesel, 2022 NY Slip Op 06556, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The attorney general can bring a criminal prosecution only upon request from an executive agency listed in Executive Law 63(3). Here the chief judge made the request. A writ of prohibition enjoining the prosecution was granted.

 

,

BOTH PARTIES MOVED TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE; DENYING THE MOTION MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CASE TO PROGRESS; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue should not have been denied because discovery was incomplete:

The motion court improvidently denied the motions of both parties to extend the deadline to file the note of issue and to complete discovery since discovery was not complete. Under the circumstances, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to adequately prepare (CPLR 3101[a] …). Additionally, as defendant demonstrated a need for additional discovery and to depose plaintiff’s expert, who was hired to calculate damages in this commercial case, its motion should have been granted (see 22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13[c] …). 361 Broadway Assoc. Holdings, LLC v Foundations Group I, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06571, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: if the judge makes it impossible for the case to progress, here by denying both parties’ motions to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue to complete discovery, the appellate court will reverse.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEFENDANT DEBTOR ENTERED A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR THREE PAYMENTS; DEFENDANT DEBTOR MADE FOUR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AMOUNTS HIGHER THAN CALLED FOR IN THE MORTGAGE; THE PAYMENTS AMOUNTED TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WHICH STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the defendant debtor acknowledged the mortgage debt by paying more than was required by the Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan. Therefore the statute of limitations for foreclosure started running when defendant debtor made the last payment:

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the complaint was timely inasmuch as Maxi Jeanty (debtor) made four payments between August 2009 and March 2010 on account of the mortgage debt which were effective pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-107 (1) to make the statute of limitations begin running anew on the date of the last such payment. We agree. Plaintiff met its prima facie burden on its motion … by submitting evidence that, after entering a Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan (the Plan), the debtor made a total of seven payments from April 2009 through March 2010, each in an amount exceeding that of the regular installment payments required under the loan documents prior to the acceleration of the debt in August 2008. The first three payments were required pursuant to the Plan, but the remaining four were not. Those four payments established circumstances amounting to ‘an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ (… see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [1]). Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jeanty, 2022 NY Slip Op 06539, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action, payments by the debtor which exceeded what was called for in the modification payment plan amounted to an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations on foreclosure began to run on the date of the last of those payments.

​

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