You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR ANKLE INJURY WERE MATERIAL AND NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to discovery of the medical records for plaintiff’s prior injuries in this slip and fall case. Although the facts are not explained, the appellate court deemed he medical records relevant to whether plaintiff was negligent:

The plaintiff Shadia Hamed allegedly sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell in a building owned and operated by the defendants. The plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the defendants negligently maintained their premises in an unsafe condition.

The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide certain discovery, including authorizations to obtain medical records related to the plaintiff’s treatment for pre-existing injuries to her right ankle. The defendants argued that these medical records were material and necessary to their defense of this action because these records were necessary to establish the plaintiff’s negligence. …

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in only conditionally granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide medical records pertaining to her pre-existing injury to her right ankle only in the event that the plaintiff ‘claims any effects on her gait or mobility as a result of this incident.’ The defendants established that these records are material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101[a][1]). Hamed v Alas Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05518, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case, the medical records pertaining to plaintiff’s prior ankle injury were deemed material and necessary to the the defense, i.e., necessary to demonstrate plaintiff’s negligence. Therefore discovery of those records should not have been restricted.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring certain advisements in the notice of default. The affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance did not have the notice of default attached. In addition, Supreme Court should not have denied defendant’s cross motion for a hearing on whether plaintiff bank met its obligation to negotiate in good faith (CPLR 3408):

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring the plaintiff to send to the defendant a notice of default containing certain advisements and setting forth a 30-day cure period. The affidavit of its employee, Lindsay Hodges, was insufficient for this purpose inasmuch as Hodges failed to attach business records upon which she relied—specifically, the notice of default itself—in averring that notice was provided in compliance with the mortgage agreement. … Hodges’s averment was therefore hearsay lacking in probative value … . …

Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff met its obligation to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). “The purpose of the good-faith requirement in CPLR 3408 is to ensure that both the plaintiff and the defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort at the settlement conference to reach a resolution” … . To conclude that a party failed to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), a court must determine that “the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution” … .

… [T]he defendant’s submissions in support of her cross motion raised a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to resolve the action through loan modification or other potential workout options … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Rose, 2022 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage agreement required that the notice of default include certain information. The affidavit submitted to prove the contents of the notice of default was hearsay because the notice was not attached.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED WHERE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED BY A VALID CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims, determined the quantum meruit cause of action should have been dismissed because the action was based upon a valid contract:

Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Claims, that branch of the State’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eleventh cause of action, which sought damages based upon a “total cost,” or quantum meruit, method of recovery, should have been granted, on the ground that parties to a valid contract cannot seek damages in quantum meruit as an alternative to a breach of contract claim arising out of the same subject matter … . Quantum meruit may be pleaded in the alternative where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract, or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue … . Here, there clearly was a valid contract, and the amount in dispute was incurred pursuant to the contract. Further, the claims did not involve a qualitative change in the nature of the work which was outside the contemplation of the contract … . Tutor Perini Corp. v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05556, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Although a quantum meruit cause of action may be pled as an alternative to a breach of contract cause of action, it must be dismissed if the underlying issues are addressed by a contract found to be valid.

 

, , , ,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mother’s (but not father’s) petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted in this medical malpractice action stemming from a stillbirth. Supreme Court had dismissed the petition because it was brought in the wrong county. But, because the respondents did not object to the venue, the judge did not have the authority to dismiss the petition on that ground. Even though mother did not demonstrate the respondents had timely knowledge of the potential malpractice action, her petition should have been granted because she had an adequate excuse (mental health issues triggered by the stillbirth) and demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. Father’s petition must be considered separately from mother’s and was denied (mother’s excuse did not apply to father):

… Supreme Court … erred when it raised the issue of improper venue sua sponte and dismissed this proceeding on that ground. The court should have instead decided the merits of the petition. * * *

Where leave is sought in one proceeding to pursue both a direct claim by an injured person and a derivative claim by his or her spouse, the spouse’s request for leave to serve a late notice of claim will not automatically be granted even if leave is granted to the injured person. Instead, the spouse’s request must be analyzed separately … . .* * *

While the actual knowledge factor [i.e., knowledge of the potential lawsuit] generally should be given “great weight” in the analysis … , the petitioners’ failure to satisfy that factor is not fatal to their petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . * * *

… [T]he petitioners met their initial minimal burden of providing a plausible argument supporting a finding of no substantial prejudice based on their contention that the respondents could defend themselves by reviewing the relevant medical records, interviewing witnesses, and consulting with experts. * * *

… [Mother] demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her delay due to her emotional and psychological injuries and the accompanying preoccupation with her well-being, as well as her attorney’s prompt investigation into the claim … . Matter of Balbuenas v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05526, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: The petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been dismissed based on improper venue because respondents didn’t object to the venue.

Practice Point: The fact that petitioners did not demonstrate the respondents in this medical malpractice case had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit was not fatal to the petition.

Practice Point: Here the potential medical malpractice action was based upon a stillbirth. Mother’s and father’s petitions must be considered separately.

Practice Point: Mother’s mental health issues stemming from the stillbirth constituted an adequate excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim.

Practice Point: Petitioners demonstrated the respondents were not prejudiced by the delay because of the medical records and the ability to interview witnesses.

Practice Point: Mother’s petition was granted, but father’s was denied because the only factor available to father was the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING THE ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT BY A TEACHER AND HER STEPFATHER IN THE 1970’S, THE FAILURE-TO-REPORT-ABUSE CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act lawsuit, determined the causes of action alleging the defendant school district failed to report the abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher (Bova) pursuant to the Social Services Law should have been dismissed:

Social Services Law § 413, which went into effect on September 1, 1973, provides that certain school officials “are required to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this title when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child” … . Social Services Law § 420(2) provides that “[a]ny person, official or institution required by this title to report a case of suspected child abuse or maltreatment who knowingly and willfully fails to do so shall be civilly liable for the damages proximately caused by such failure.” For purposes of Social Services Law § 413, an “abused child” means “a child under eighteen years of age and who is defined as an abused child by the family court act” … . Family Court Act § 1012(e) defines an “abused child” as one harmed by a “parent or other person legally responsible for his [or her] care.” … .

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the District’s motion which was to dismiss the ninth cause of action, alleging that it failed to report suspected child abuse committed by Bova, because Bova was not a “person legally responsible” for the plaintiff’s care … . The court also should have granted that branch of the District’s motion which was to dismiss the tenth cause of action, alleging that it failed to report suspected child abuse committed by the plaintiff’s stepfather, insofar as asserted against it. The complaint does not contain any allegation that the District received information about abuse committed by the plaintiff’s stepfather at any time after the end of the 1972-1973 school year in June 1973, which was months prior to September 1, 1973, the date that Social Services Law § 413 went into effect … . Finally, …punitive damages are not available against the District … . Hanson v Hicksville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act suit against defendant school district alleging abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher and her stepfather in the 1970’s, the Social Services Law causes of action alleging the district failed to report the abuse were dismissed because: (1) the teacher was not legally responsible for plaintiff’s care; and (2) the Social Services Law requiring the school to report abuse by the stepfather was not in effect at the time.

 

,

THE POINT AT WHICH LEAVE OF COURT AND THE STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a matter of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in the context of a foreclosure action, determined the point at which leave of court and the stipulation of all parties is required to discontinue the action is the return date for the motion to confirm the referee’s report:

CPLR 3217(b) permits the discontinuance of an action by a party with leave of court or by a stipulation of the parties before the cause is submitted to the trier of fact for a determination of the facts; but once the cause has been submitted for a determination of the facts, a discontinuance may only be granted upon both leave of court and a stipulation of all parties appearing in the action. While the mechanics of the statute are clear when an action is tried before a judge or jury, no appellate case has yet addressed the question of when an action is considered “submitted to the court” under CPLR 3217(b) when the matter is referred to a referee to hear and report, and the report is thereafter subject to confirmation, rejection, or modification by the Supreme Court. We hold that the operative date for requiring both leave of court and for the parties to stipulate to the discontinuance is the return date of a motion to confirm, reject, or modify the assigned referee’s report, as that is the moment when the factual issues of a case are submitted to the court for the determinative deliberative process. * * *

We find, as a matter of first impression, that where an action is referred to a court attorney referee to hear and report, the time that is most akin to the submission of the case to the court or the jury for a determination of the facts is the return date of the motion to confirm the referee’s report. Prior to that time, the conclusion of the trial before the referee is not final as the referee, while setting forth his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, has no authority to determine the matter … . Emigrant Bank v Solimano, 2022 NY Slip Op 05311, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: In a matter of first impression, the Second Department held that the point at which leave of court and the stipulation of all parties to discontinue a foreclosure action is the return date for the motion to confirm the referee’s report.

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint by physicians against their employer/malpractice-insurance-policy-administrator stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and mutual mistake. The dispute centers on whether the physicians or the employer which paid the malpractice insurance premiums are/is entitled to the proceeds when the insurer (MLMIC) demutualized. The employer had the physicians sign forms consenting to distributing the proceeds to the employer. The physicians allege the consent forms are invalid:

Plaintiffs allege that the forms by which they authorized MLMIC to distribute their demutualization proceeds to defendant are invalid because defendant obtained them in breach of its fiduciary duty, by fraud, or due to mutual mistake. If these forms are invalid, then the demutualization proceeds belong to plaintiffs … .

Transactions between a fiduciary and beneficiary are voidable if the fiduciary acts in its own interest and does not fully disclose all material facts … . Defendant is alleged not only to have withheld the policyholder information statement from plaintiffs, but to have significantly misrepresented their contents for its own gain. These allegations, which are not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Fraud is another basis for rescinding the consent forms … . Plaintiffs also properly allege constructive fraud, because they were owed a fiduciary duty by defendant and so were “warranted to . . . relax the care and vigilance they would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” … . …

Mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . For the purposes of this motion to dismiss, however, it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiffs were negligent … . Cordaro v AdvantageCare Physicians, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 05267, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: The complaint adequately alleged the employer, which also served at the medical malpractice insurance policy administrator, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs-physicians by requiring them to consent to the distribution (to the employer) of the proceeds of the demutualization of the medical malpractice insurance carrier. The complaint also sufficiently alleged fraud, constructive fraud and mutual-mistake causes of action.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, clarified the burdens of proof at the summary judgment stage where the municipality demonstrates it did not have written notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Once the city demonstrates a lack of written notice, the plaintiff must come forward with proof of an applicable exception to the written-notice requirement, even where, as here, the complaint alleged no exception applies. Precedent to the contrary should no longer be followed:

… [W]here, as here, “the City establishes that it lacked prior written notice under [Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2)], the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule—that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality” …  Furthermore, we clarify that the burden-shifting standard … is applicable even where, as here, the complaint alleged that the defendants created the allegedly dangerous condition … . To the extent that this Court’s case law conflicts with the burden-shifting standard set forth in Groninger or Yarborough [Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d at 728; …Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125], it should no longer be followed … . * * *

Applying the correct standard here, the City sustained its initial burden on that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City affirmatively created the allegedly dangerous condition. The expert affidavit proffered by the plaintiff was not supported by the record and, thus, was speculative and conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Under the circumstances, those branches of the City’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it should have been granted. Smith v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05226, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: The Second Department clarified the burdens of proof at the summary judgment stage where a plaintiff alleges injury by a defective condition on NYC property. If the city demonstrates it did not have written notice of the condition, to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must come forward with sufficient admissible evidence an exception to the written-notice requirement applies, even where, as in this case, the complaint alleges no exception is applicable. Case law in the Second Department to the contrary should no longer be followed.

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HER FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WHICH WERE MAILED TWICE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted. Defendant, Cupid, alleged she was on vacation and did not learn of the action until the motion for a default judgment. The Second Department concluded Cupid may have adequately explained why she did not see the summons and complaint affixed to her door, but  failed to explain why she did not receive the summons and complaint by mail:

Cupid claimed that her denial of receipt was not bare and conclusory, based upon evidence that she was away on vacation when the summons and complaint were left at her door pursuant to CPLR 308(4). However, even assuming that that explanation was sufficient for her alleged failure to receive the summons and complaint left at her door, Cupid did not explain why she did not receive notice by mail—which was effected twice. The bare conclusory denial of receipt was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default, or lack of notice of the action … . In light of that determination, it is not necessary to determine whether Cupid demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense for purposes of either CPLR 5015(a)(1) or 317 … . Gray v Goodluck-Hedge, 2022 NY Slip Op 05204, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: Conclusory allegations the summons and complaint were not received by the defendant will not support the vacation of a default judgment. Here defendant may have explained why she did not see the summons and complaint affixed to her door, but failed to address the fact that the summons and complaint were mailed to her twice.

 

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