, , ,

THE JUDGE CANNOT, SUA SPONTE, DIRECT ARBITRATION WITHOUT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY; NON-SIGNATORIES TO AN AGREEMENT CONTAINING A FORUM SELECTION PROVISION MAY BE BOUND BY THE PROVISION IF THEY ARE SIGNATORIES TO A RELATED AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, interpreted jurisdiction, forum selection and arbitration provisions in the subject agreements. The decision is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. The court summarized its rulings as follows:

This appeal presents novel questions related to jurisdiction, as well as arbitration and forum selection provisions in agreements. The first question is whether, upon reviewing an agreement and determining that an arbitration provision governs, a court should, sua sponte, direct the parties to arbitrate. We hold that a court should not direct parties to arbitrate absent a request from one of the parties.

The second question requires us to examine the circumstances under which non-signatories to an agreement containing a forum selection provision may be bound by that provision consistent with due process. We hold that non-signatories to an agreement may be bound by that agreement’s forum selection provision when they are signatories to a related agreement, which forms part of the same transaction, and are closely related to both the transaction and one of the signatories to the agreement containing the forum selection provision. P.S. Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00877, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, direct parties to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement absent a request from a party.

Practice Point: Non-signatories may be bound by a forum selection provision in an agreement if they are signatories to a related agreement.

 

, , ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action should not have been converted to an Article 78 and the action was precluded by plaintiff-physician’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Public Health Law. Plaintiff was matched to a residency program at defendant hospital and the hospital was contractually bound to offer the residency to the plaintiff. The hospital sought a waiver which was denied, and the hospital still refused to offer the residency to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. Supreme Court improperly converted the action to an Article 78 (mandamus) proceeding and granted the preliminary injunction. The appellate division held a breach of contract action cannot be converted to an Article 78:

Invoking CPLR 103(c), the Supreme Court erroneously converted the subject branch of the plaintiff’s motion and this action into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Under CPLR 103(c), courts are empowered to convert a civil judicial proceeding that was brought in the improper form to the proper form and convert a motion into a special proceeding. Here, the court erred in concluding that a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was the proper form. “[A] CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights” … . “Indeed, it is well settled that mandamus relief lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts, and may not be used when there are other available remedies at law, such as a breach of contract action” … . * * *

Supreme Court should not have rejected the hospital’s argument that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for preliminary injunctive relief against it should be denied because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under Public Health Law article 28. Public Health Law § 2801-b(1) makes it an “improper practice” for a hospital to deny, withhold, or terminate professional privileges for a reason unrelated to “patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant.” “To enforce the statutory prohibition against improper practices, the Legislature created a two-step grievance process by which a physician may obtain injunctive relief requiring the hospital to restore wrongfully terminated staff privileges” … . “First, the physician must submit a complaint to the [public health and health planning council (hereinafter PHHPC)]” … . “It is the duty of the [PHHPC] to undertake a prompt investigation of the action complained of and to allow the parties to the dispute to submit, in a strictly confidential setting, any relevant information in support of their respective positions” … . “After investigating the physician’s complaint, the [PHHPC] will either direct the hospital to reconsider its decision or inform the parties of its determination that the complaint lacks merit” … . Khass v New York Presbyt. Brooklyn Methodist Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00851, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A breach of contract action is not properly converted to an Article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 103(c).

Practice Point: A hospital’s failure to honor its contractual commitment to admit plaintiff physician to a residency program is subject to administrative remedies under the Public Health Law which must be exhausted before bringing suit.

 

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the notice of claim in this slip and fall action against the Port Authority was timely because it was served at least 60 days before the commencement of the action. The statute of limitations for the commencement of the action had been tolled by executive order due to the COVID pandemic:

This appeal involves the intersection of McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107, which sets forth conditions precedent for commencing an action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority), and the executive orders issued by former Governor Andrew Cuomo which tolled time limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107 requires that an action against the Port Authority must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues and that a notice of claim must be served upon the Port Authority at least 60 days before the commencement of the action. We hold that where, as here, the deadline to commence an action pursuant to section 7107 was tolled, service of the notice of claim at least 60 days prior to the timely commencement of the action satisfies section 7107. * * *

… [T]the commencement of this action on November 4, 2020, satisfied section 7107 … .

… [T]he plain language of section 7107 makes the deadline to serve a notice of claim dependent upon the date of commencement, unlike other statutes where the time to serve the notice of claim is measured from the date that the cause of action accrues … . … Therefore, the plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim on August 14, 2020, more than 60 days prior to the commencement of the action on November 4, 2020, satisfied the condition precedent set forth in section 7107. Espinal v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2023 NY Slip Op 00844, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: The statute controlling the timing of a notice of claim against the Port Authority requires service of the notice of claim at least 60 days before the commencement of the action, not 60 days after the accrual of the action.

 

WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the special proceeding should have been converted to a plenary action, not dismissed. Once converted the petition is deemed a complaint, not a motion for summary judgment:

Supreme Court should have converted the special proceeding into a plenary action rather than dismissing the petition, as CPLR 103(c) “prohibits dismissal of [a] proceeding solely on the ground that it was not brought in the proper form” … .

… [W]e decline petitioner’s request to construe the petition and answer as summary judgment papers and to summarily adjudicate his remaining claims at this stage. When a special proceeding is converted into a plenary action in accordance with CPLR 103(c), the petition is deemed a complaint, not a motion for summary judgment … . Zanani v Scott Seidler Family Trust, 2023 NY Slip Op 00836, First Dept 2-14-23

Practice Point: Here the action should not have been dismissed solely because it was in the wrong form. The special proceeding should have been brought as a plenary action. The petition should be deemed a complaint, not a motion for summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ANSWER IS DEEMED TO BE AN ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment based upon the allegations in the verified complaint should have been granted:

A party seeking a default judgment must submit proof of service of the summons and the complaint and “proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due” (CPLR 3215[f] …). To demonstrate “facts constituting the claim,” the movant need only proffer proof sufficient “to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists” … . The movant may do so either by submission of an affidavit of merit or by verified complaint, if one has been properly served … .

Here, contrary to the court’s conclusion, plaintiffs established the facts constituting their claim. Their verified complaint alleges that plaintiff Maria Bigio was walking in front of defendant’s property when she tripped and fell on a defective sidewalk condition, sustaining injuries, and plaintiff stated in her verification that these allegations were true to her own personal knowledge. Because defendant, by defaulting, is deemed to have admitted “all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation[] of liability,” the allegations were sufficient to enable the court to determine that a viable negligence cause of action existed … . Bigio v Gooding, 2023 NY Slip Op 00806, First Dept 2-14-23

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case the allegations in the verified complaint were sufficient to grant plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. The failure to answer is deemed an admission to the allegations in the complaint.

 

,

NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’S) PURCHASED BY SUNY STONY BROOK FOR USE IN MADAGASCAR IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division, determined New York had long-arm jurisdiction over a Michigan manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) purchased by SUNY Stony Brook for transporting medical supplies to remote areas of Madagascar. The two UAV’s purchased by SUNY Stony Brook didn’t meet Stony Brooks’ needs and were returned to Michigan for replacement. The UAV’s were not replaced and SUNY Stony Brook sued for breach of contract:

… “[T]he nature and purpose of a solitary business meeting conducted for a single day in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary to subject a nonresident participant to the jurisdiction of our courts” … . Here … there was more than this bare minimum: the meeting was part of a far reaching and long-standing relationship … . * * *

… Plaintiff’s claims are based on the sale of the two UAVs, and [the UAV manufacturer’s] contacts in New York were directly related to efforts to resolve the dispute over operability of the purchased UAVs … .Thus, “[t]here is an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between defendant’s New York activities and the parties’ contract, defendant’s alleged breach thereof, and potential damages” … .

Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction must also comport with due process, a constitutional inquiry focused on “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation” … . * * * Those requirements are satisfied here. State of New York v Vayu, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00801, CtApp 2-14-23

Practice Point: Even a single solitary business meeting in New York may supply the minimum contacts necessary for long-arm jurisdiction.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED AS A JOHN DOE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND BECAUSE HE WAS SUED AS AN HEIR TO THE MORTGAGEE, AND NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MORTGAGEE’S ESTATE, THE ACTION WAS TIME BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined defendant was not properly substituted in the amended complaint for a John Doe in the original complaint and, because defendant was sued in his capacity as the heir of the decedent, and not as a representative of the decedent’s estate, the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action … against … the mortgagee, David B. Bailey (decedent), and certain “John Does” and “Jane Does” defined in the complaint as “the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint.” Plaintiff subsequently discovered that decedent had died in 2018 and made an ex parte application seeking … to substitute Arthur Bailey, in his capacity as heir to decedent’s estate (defendant), as a John Doe defendant and for leave to file an amended complaint. …

We agree with defendant that his motion should be granted insofar as it seeks dismissal of the amended complaint against him. Defendant correctly contends that he was improperly substituted as John Doe #1 pursuant to CPLR 1024. Inasmuch as the original complaint “fail[ed] to mention decedent’s death” and defendant is being sued in the amended complaint in his capacity as an heir to decedent’s estate, defendant does not fit within the categories of John and Jane Does set forth in the original complaint and thus cannot be substituted therefor … . Further, although here plaintiff also filed and served an amended complaint on defendant solely in his capacity as heir to decedent’s estate and not as a representative thereof (… see generally EPTL 3-3.6 [a], [b] …), … the relevant statute of limitations expired prior to the order granting plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file the amended complaint (see generally CPLR 213 [4]). Citibank, N.A. v Bailey, 2023 NY Slip Op 00777, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: If a defendant does not fit any of the “John Doe” categories described in the original complaint, he cannot be added as a John Doe in an amended complaint.

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS DENIED PROPER MEDICAL CARE IN THE NIAGARA COUNTY JAIL AND SUED THE JAIL DOCTOR, THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS; OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DEEMED TIME-BARRED; ACTIONS ALLEGING THE COUNTY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHERIFF WERE DISMISSED; THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE COUNTY AND SHERIFF WERE NOT DEEMED “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some causes of action should have been dismissed and others should not have been dismissed in this action against the county, county employees and sheriff alleging plaintiff was denied proper medical care while he was an inmate in the Niagara County Jail. The medical malpractice and negligence causes of action against a doctor employed by the county were time-barred pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-d (one year and ninety days). The causes of action against the doctor and the county alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC 1983 properly survived motions to dismiss. But the 42 USC 1983 cause of action against the sheriff should have been dismissed because the sheriff had no personal involvement in plaintiff’s medical care. The relation-back doctrine was improperly invoked for time-barred causes of action against the sheriff because the county and the sheriff are not united interest (the county is not vicariously liable for the acts of the sheriff and the sheriff’s department does not have an identity separate from the county). The negligent investigation cause of action should have been dismissed because New York does not recognize it. Claims alleging the county was vicariously liable for the acts of the sheriff should have been dismissed because plaintiff did not allege there was a local law imposing such a responsibility. Prezioso v County of Niagara, 2023 NY Slip Op 00768, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged he was denied proper medical care in the Niagara County Jail. Plaintiff’s causes of action alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 USC 1983 survived dismissal. The confusing relationship between the county and the sheriff resulted in the dismissal of several causes of action. The one-year-ninety day statute of limitations in the General Municipal Law applied to some causes of action. Absent a local law to the contrary, a county is not vicariously liable for the acts of the sheriff. The decision is worth reading because of the sheer number of unique issues which arise in suits against counties, county employees and county sheriffs.

 

,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE NOT “REDLINED” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint should not have been denied on the ground the proposed changes were not “redlined” (apparently referring to the failure to mark the proposed changes to make them more visible):

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s cross motion solely on the technical basis that the proposed amended complaint was not redlined (see CPLR 3025[b]), since the proposed amendments to add the third-party defendants as direct defendants were sufficiently described in the moving papers and easily discerned on review of the proposed amended summons and complaint … . Herrera v Highgate Hotels, L.P., 2023 NY Slip Op 00729, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: Although CPLR 3025 (b) requires that “Any motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading.” the motion to amend here should not have been denied because the proposed changes were not “redlined.” The accompanying papers sufficiently described the proposed changes.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGATION THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE IN 1982 – 1983 WAS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO MEET THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act proceeding, determined the claim sufficiently described when the sexual abuse occurred. The claimant alleged she was abused by a state employee in 1982 and 1983 when she was 17. The Court of Claims had dismissed the claim finding that the allegations when the abuse took place were not specific enough. The Second Department found the 1982 – 1983 time frame adequate:

Court of Claims Act § 11(b) “places five specific substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity by requiring the claim to specify (1) the nature of [the claim]; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … .  ***

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the date ranges provided in the claim stating that the sexual abuse commenced in approximately 1982 and occurred “repeatedly” and “multiple times” from approximately 1982 to 1983, during periods when the claimant was directed to the Workshop to receive counseling, along with other information contained in the claim including, inter alia, that there was a criminal investigation, prosecution, and conviction of West based upon the claimant’s complaints of sexual abuse, were sufficient to satisfy the “time when” requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) … . Fenton v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-8-23

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act case against a state employee, the allegation the sexual abuse took place in 1982 – 1983 was deemed specific enough to satisfy the pleading requirements in the Court of Claims Act.

Similar issues and result in Meyer v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00658, Second Dept 2-8-23